Training

[KPM]

I thought this article had some good points on training that applies to martial arts, and is germane to recent discussions:

https://breakingmuscle.com/learn/training-activities-for-athletes-skill-training-research-and-how-to-apply-it-part-3

[LFJ]

You need to understand a method before looking for counterarguments to it out of spite.

[KPM]

You need to understand a method before looking for counterarguments to it out of spite.

There you go trying to start another argument. I posted it simply because I thought it was interesting and spoke to the idea of training "applications." You don't like it, you don't have to read it.

[Sihing73]

You know most of those who I have met or read about of a high level of skill hardly ever argued with others.
If you are secure in your approach then so be it, no need or benefit of always trying to put differing views down.


LFJ, I am going to step outside of my normal response for a moment and ask you something, and this does relate to Training so it is relevant to this thread.

You have made statements that you do not train applications, not in forms or apparently elsewhere in your approach to WC/VT/WT.

So my question is:

When you practice Chi Sau, which from previous videos posted, it appears that you utilize the same movements other Yip Man lineages utilize.
So, that being the case, are you not actually training to apply techniques/applications within the framework of Chi Sau to respond to specific techniques.
In other words aren't you training to respond to specific actions or energy with specific responses? While I agree that there can be modifications and your response can and should vary depending on what is given, but don't you need to know and learn how to respond with something specific? At least in the beginning?

If not then please explain what you are using Chi Sau for if not training to respond in a preset pattern with some variations.

[guy b.]

You know most of those who I have met or read about of a high level of skill hardly ever argued with others.
If you are secure in your approach then so be it, no need or benefit of always trying to put differing views down.


LFJ, I am going to step outside of my normal response for a moment and ask you something, and this does relate to Training so it is relevant to this thread.

You have made statements that you do not train applications, not in forms or apparently elsewhere in your approach to WC/VT/WT.

So my question is:

When you practice Chi Sau, which from previous videos posted, it appears that you utilize the same movements other Yip Man lineages utilize.
So, that being the case, are you not actually training to apply techniques/applications within the framework of Chi Sau to respond to specific techniques.
In other words aren't you training to respond to specific actions or energy with specific responses? While I agree that there can be modifications and your response can and should vary depending on what is given, but don't you need to know and learn how to respond with something specific? At least in the beginning?

If not then please explain what you are using Chi Sau for if not training to respond in a preset pattern with some variations.

Chi sau is not fighting or a simulation of fighting. So learning applications from chi sau is a non-sequitur from the point of view of WSL VT. You can't fight from chi sau because the opponent can leave chi sau whenever they like. It is an artificial drill relying upon cooperation and designed to teach certain things relevant to fighting.

A similar method is "grinding arms" in some other southern chinese MA, although chi sau much more developed and flexible, and of course teaching aspects of a completely different system


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYD8Iz7rgwM

[Sihing73]

Chi sau is not fighting or a simulation of fighting. So learning applications from chi sau is a non-sequitur from the point of view of WSL VT. You can't fight from chi sau because the opponent can leave chi sau whenever they like. It is an artificial drill relying upon cooperation and designed to teach certain things relevant to fighting.

A similar method is "grinding arms" in some other southern chinese MA, although chi sau much more developed and flexible, and of course teaching aspects of a completely different system


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYD8Iz7rgwM

Okay, let's try to get an answer to something simple. ;)

When you guys do Chi Sau (which no one is saying is fighting) do you use Taun, Bong and other "techniques"?
Do you ever use these "techniques" in fighting?
If so then I would submit that you train applications. :)

[KPM]

Okay, let's try to get an answer to something simple. ;)



Good luck! ;)

[guy b.]

Okay, let's try to get an answer to something simple. ;)

When you guys do Chi Sau (which no one is saying is fighting) do you use Taun, Bong and other "techniques"?
Do you ever use these "techniques" in fighting?
If so then I would submit that you train applications. :)

Tan is not a technique, it is a training methodology

There is no application of anything in chi sau as in fighting, therefore no applications are trained. Rather particular attributes are trained.

[Sihing73]

Tan is not a technique, it is a training methodology

There is no application of anything in chi sau as in fighting, therefore no applications are trained. Rather particular attributes are trained.

I wonder if you guys practice "Empty Chi"
Seems like getting any real answers is impossible, like trying to grasp mist.

So you guys train "attributes" but you utilize the same shapes as others doing WC but you do it in some totally different way.
Of course this should make all of your guys awesome and unbeatable...................I am waiting to see where all of your fighters are :rolleyes:

Your group makes attacks and derides TWC, which I do not train, yet who do you point to that stands tall and represents your approach in combat?
In TWC I would ask have any of your guys ever sparred with Rick Spain or any of his students?
Anyone ever crossed hands with Emin?

When one does not know something or is unable to explain it then it can lead others to question whether they are lying or just not smart enough to explain things for others to understand. Now, the inability to understand something could be the fault of the person asking the question. However, it can also be the fault of the one trying to provide the answer.

Taun is one of the seeds of Wing Chun. While it does teach attributes it is also used in application.
You are welcome to say that it does not however, I would then aks you to show any video where you guys actually spar yet fail to use any of the commonly recognized "techniques" of Wing Chun. I highly doubt you can do this. Instead I expect more of the same vague "we don't use applications or techniques, we use attributes.............I dare say if that is true it is highly unlikely any of you can use your approach for real. In other words, if you were to try and use your system you would have to use techniques or applications or you would simply get your butt handed to you for trying to use just "attributes".

Of course it would be easy to prove me wrong. You have asked for clips showing other using their approach in sparring. I submit you show the same thing. There is one caveat though, since you guys don't use applications or techniques nor do you train to use such, I would like to see a clip of any of your guys fighting and wining without the use of a single "application".

I won't hold my breath waiting as I know you can't produce anything within those parameters.

Good Luck!!! :rolleyes:

[guy b.]

I wonder if you guys practice "Empty Chi"
Seems like getting any real answers is impossible, like trying to grasp mist

I am happy to try and explain to you, I am sorry for any short answers; I am wary of KPM who is a troll hanging around this forum at the moment.


So you guys train "attributes" but you utilize the same shapes as others doing WC but you do it in some totally different way.
Of course this should make all of your guys awesome and unbeatable...................I am waiting to see where all of your fighters are :rolleyes:

I don't think there is any need for sarcasm.


Your group makes attacks and derides TWC, which I do not train, yet who do you point to that stands tall and represents your approach in combat?
In TWC I would ask have any of your guys ever sparred with Rick Spain or any of his students?
Anyone ever crossed hands with Emin?

I am not deriding anyone. But neither am I idiotically enthusiastic about training methodologies I don't agree with. I am happy to live and let live as far as TWC is concerned. Unfortunately KPM is using TWC as a device to troll LFJ in a long argument spilling over from the snowflake-infested martial talk forum. It would probably take too long to explain the ins and outs of this boring conflict here and now, so I guess you will need to approach with an open mind if you want to converse.

Many people from WT and TWC have come to WSL VT. Sparring has happened. My opinion is what it is.


When one does not know something or is unable to explain it then it can lead others to question whether they are lying or just not smart enough to explain things for others to understand. Now, the inability to understand something could be the fault of the person asking the question. However, it can also be the fault of the one trying to provide the answer.

What do you want me to explain?


Taun is one of the seeds of Wing Chun. While it does teach attributes it is also used in application

Not in WSL VT. Tan is punch training, not a technique to apply in fighting


You are welcome to say that it does not however, I would then aks you to show any video where you guys actually spar yet fail to use any of the commonly recognized "techniques" of Wing Chun. I highly doubt you can do this. Instead I expect more of the same vague "we don't use applications or techniques, we use attributes.............I dare say if that is true it is highly unlikely any of you can use your approach for real. In other words, if you were to try and use your system you would have to use techniques or applications or you would simply get your butt handed to you for trying to use just "attributes"

Of course it would be easy to prove me wrong. You have asked for clips showing other using their approach in sparring. I submit you show the same thing. There is one caveat though, since you guys don't use applications or techniques nor do you train to use such, I would like to see a clip of any of your guys fighting and wining without the use of a single "application".

I won't hold my breath waiting as I know you can't produce anything within those parameters.

Good Luck!!! :rolleyes:

It seems as if you have joined KPM in his trolling? I hope not.

The group I train with doesn't release sparring clips for public consumption. Here is a clip from a closely related group:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbI1Q1j-d80

[Sihing73]

Guy B,

Believe it or not I am not interested in trolling or even arguing.
Just seems like there has been a bit of implications that a certain lineage is full of crap.
Everyone is welcome to their opinion but it is kind of unfair to lump an entire lineage into a specific crap pile.

If you research my posts you will find that I have been saying for years that each lineage has someone who can make that approach work for them.
Thus, every approach can be valid.
I do what I do because I like it and found it worked for my needs.

I like the forward energy and fairly constant attack in the clip.
Also would seem to reinforce the idea that a few core methods can be applied fairly well.

If you prefer to have a discussion offline then feel free to email or PM me.
Email is probably best to discuss anything of length.
I can promise to keep anything discussed private if that is your wish.

[guy b.]

A little bit of light sparring in this clip, starts about 1.22


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6YVmNnuSIA

[guy b.]

Guy B,

Believe it or not I am not interested in trolling or even arguing.
Just seems like there has been a bit of implications that a certain lineage is full of crap.
Everyone is welcome to their opinion but it is kind of unfair to lump an entire lineage into a specific crap pile.

People can train whatever they like as far as I am concerned. They are not me, I am not them. What they do is their choice. But I will not sugar coat my opinion of training methodologies. If I disagree with them, and you ask me about it, then I will say so. I believe that LFJ is of like mind on this matter. KPM knows this, hence his cynical decision to use TWC as a device to troll the forum. I feel bad about this because I have no particular issue with TWC and and happy if other people are happy doing it. I feel particularly bad that Phil was dragged here, probably due to a message from KPM, and made to feel under attack.


If you research my posts you will find that I have been saying for years that each lineage has someone who can make that approach work for them.
Thus, every approach can be valid.

I don't share your belief that every approach is valid. Truth is not relative and every approach is not equally valuable. I think some MA systems are irredeemably stupid. I wouldn't say so though unless you asked me. But I wouldn't lie if you did.


I do what I do because I like it and found it worked for my needs

I don't know what you do but I am glad you are satisfied with it


I like the forward energy and fairly constant attack in the clip.
Also would seem to reinforce the idea that a few core methods can be applied fairly well.

Good, glad it helped


If you prefer to have a discussion offline then feel free to email or PM me.
Email is probably best to discuss anything of length.
I can promise to keep anything discussed private if that is your wish.

PM any question you want to ask. Would prefer not to give info to KPM. LFJ probably a better source of info than me if you want good technical detail, but I can cover basics.

[KPM]

Dave, I don't appreciate being repeatedly referred to as a "troll" for simply trying to carry on a productive discussion as you are doing now. Do we not have any standards in this forum?

[KPM]

Back to the topic of training......since martials arts is undoubtedly a skill we are all trying to master, I thought this was another good article:

https://blog.todoist.com/2015/08/11/how-to-learn-anything-a-real-world-guide-to-mastering-any-new-skill/


This one is pretty good as well. It describes the stages of skill acquisition:

http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/learning-process-when-acquiring-motor-skills-similar-for-all-individuals

[zuti car]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbI1Q1j-d80

This is sparring ?

[Sihing73]

Dave, I don't appreciate being repeatedly referred to as a "troll" for simply trying to carry on a productive discussion as you are doing now. Do we not have any standards in this forum?

I can appreciate that.

Everyone knows who they are so I should not need to direct this to individuals.

We are supposed to be mature so let's keep it civil going forward.

No more name calling or the posts will be deleted.
This goes both ways gentleman.
Nothing further needs to be said, let the past stay in the past and move forward instead.

[Sihing73]

This is sparring ?

I don't believe it is sparring.
More an example of training using forward energy(??)

Of course I cannot speak as I am viewing it as an outsider.

[guy b.]

This is sparring ?

There is a short section of light sparring from 0.29

[KPM]

I don't believe it is sparring.
More an example of training using forward energy(??)

Of course I cannot speak as I am viewing it as an outsider.


Maybe we could call this "controlled targeted sparring"? Not really what most people are referring to when they want to see a sparring clip. Problem one is that he is sparring one of his students. So of course the student is not really trying to "give as good as he gets." This could be on purpose for the camera, or simply subconscious due to the fact that he is sparring his instructor. The second problem is that the student is not doing anything outside the realm of WSLVT. So it is a very artificial set up because if you ever had to fight, it is doubtful it would be against another skilled Wing Chun guy. So it really doesn't highlight what Michael Kurth can do against a more typical fighter. Now I think Michael Kurth is really good! There are some impressive things in the clip. I just wouldn't call it real sparring.

[KPM]

Of course it would be easy to prove me wrong. You have asked for clips showing other using their approach in sparring. I submit you show the same thing. There is one caveat though, since you guys don't use applications or techniques nor do you train to use such, I would like to see a clip of any of your guys fighting and wining without the use of a single "application".

:

Jai Harmon is the only guy I can think of right now from the WSLVT lineage with real sparring clips up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA7rj7b_sM0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS-PuD3iQiI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFOwFLf3k0o


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbKfjS1aF_s


Jai is a good fighter. But I don't see any super special Wing Chun here, do you? He has a good low sweep. But wait a minute....that's an "application" isn't it?? ;) I see lots of Pak Sau and Wing Chun blast (chain punching). I don't think I saw a single Bong/Lop combination to set anything up. And you see a LOT of Bong/Lop combinations in just about every clip of WSLVT training. And....I know, I know!......Chi Sau is not fighting and what they are training in those clips is not meant to be applied! But still, one would tend to think that if there is so much emphasis put on the attributes developed from that repeated Bong/Lop exchange structure....that something resembling it would show up in sparring. But that's just me.

[KPM]

I thought of someone else! Jerry Yeung is another WSLVT lineage guy that has some good clips up.

This one is labeled sparring, but isn't really. Some light Gor Sau work with one of his students:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_xCxE3rCF4

Some light sparring here starting at 1:30. But not much to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fqwNGUq60I

Jerry likes to reach out and use the "neck pulling hand" from the dummy form. Does that count as an "application"??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUMyu5tNBtk


That's about it.

[zuti car]

I don't believe it is sparring.
More an example of training using forward energy(??)

Of course I cannot speak as I am viewing it as an outsider.

When I spar I go local boxing gym (or I was , they closed recently ) , anyway , this doesn't look like sparring , but the thing I did notice is that movements on the video are so fast , like from old Charile Chaplin's movies .I mean , it is ok to be fast but this ...

[Sihing73]

Understand that all will not train the same way.
No need to be derisive just cause you do not do things the same way.
Continuing to post deriding comments may be considered trolling.

[zuti car]

Understand that all will not train the same way.
No need to be derisive just cause you do not do things the same way.
Continuing to post deriding comments may be considered trolling.

Basically , I have to agree with everything and cannot say what I thinlk? Of course everyone has the right to do whatever they like ,I was called a fool for saying the same thing , but I also have a right not to agree with eberything , or maybe not . Speed of the video is obviously increased , I just noticed that ,that is all. If stating the obvius is trolling maybe I should not comment anything at all ...

[Sihing73]

Sensitive are we?
Did not realize I put your name in my post, will have to see if it is hiding:confused: somewhere, perhaps in stealth mode???
Was not directed to you per se but if you think the shoe fits................
It is possible to voice an opinion without deriding others.
Of course that does sometimes require skill and self control

Now I'll bet you will say I am accusing you of not having self control......but it is not directed at you per se.
Just happens you replied to a post and I replied to you.
If not applicable to you then don't take as directed at you.
Of course only you know your motivation so............................

[LFJ]

When you practice Chi Sau, which from previous videos posted, it appears that you utilize the same movements other Yip Man lineages utilize.
So, that being the case, are you not actually training to apply techniques/applications within the framework of Chi Sau to respond to specific techniques.

No. The "same movements" have completely different meanings.


In other words aren't you training to respond to specific actions or energy with specific responses?

Not as a fight simulation.


don't you need to know and learn how to respond with something specific? At least in the beginning?

Not as a fight simulation.


If not then please explain what you are using Chi Sau for if not training to respond in a preset pattern with some variations.

Attribute development, like alignment, balance, distance, timing, etc..


So you guys train "attributes" but you utilize the same shapes as others doing WC but you do it in some totally different way.
Of course this should make all of your guys awesome and unbeatable.

Unbeatable because we train attributes through chi-sau? You are not being logical.


In TWC I would ask have any of your guys ever sparred with Rick Spain or any of his students?

Who?


Anyone ever crossed hands with Emin?

Ex-WT students, of which there are literally hundreds who have switched, including high-ranking instructors, same as from TWC.

I don't know any other system that can say the same. That alone would be enough to pique my interest and have me traveling to the nearest VT school to see what it's all about.


When one does not know something or is unable to explain it then it can lead others to question whether they are lying or just not smart enough to explain things for others to understand. Now, the inability to understand something could be the fault of the person asking the question. However, it can also be the fault of the one trying to provide the answer.

VT is best experienced and understood in person.


Taun is one of the seeds of Wing Chun. While it does teach attributes it is also used in application.
You are welcome to say that it does not however, I would then aks you to show any video where you guys actually spar yet fail to use any of the commonly recognized "techniques" of Wing Chun. I highly doubt you can do this.

We tell you taan-sau is a training tool and doesn't show up in fighting, but you think we will in fact use it as a block or something?

Why?


When you guys do Chi Sau (which no one is saying is fighting) do you use Taun, Bong and other "techniques"?
Do you ever use these "techniques" in fighting?
If so then I would submit that you train applications. :)

No. In pun-sau, taan and fuk are antagonistic training tools for developing VT punching. Neither are "techniques" for fighting. Bong ensures squared facing while training the punches, and helps prevent overturning for example in seung-ma/teui-ma drills.

We don't fight with both arms equally extended like this, and none of this will show up as "techniques" in fighting.


Instead I expect more of the same vague "we don't use applications or techniques, we use attributes.............I dare say if that is true it is highly unlikely any of you can use your approach for real. In other words, if you were to try and use your system you would have to use techniques or applications or you would simply get your butt handed to you for trying to use just "attributes".

Taan-sau trains the punch. We punch. We don't use taan-sau to block or anything.

You are making the same assessment from ignorance that KPM made.

If you don't understand a training method you have not experienced or even seen, you are not justified in making an assessment on its efficacy.


You have asked for clips showing other using their approach in sparring.

Only because they already have such clips online. I'm just asking to have things pointed out to me that I don't see in what is already publicly available.

I have not asked anyone to make sparring clips to satisfy me personally. I don't think anyone would care to do that.

[LFJ]

Problem one is that he is sparring one of his students. So of course the student is not really trying to "give as good as he gets."

Of course? These guys do fight each other and leave training bloodied up quite often. The student is being shut down, but not for not trying!


The second problem is that the student is not doing anything outside the realm of WSLVT. So it is a very artificial set up because if you ever had to fight, it is doubtful it would be against another skilled Wing Chun guy. So it really doesn't highlight what Michael Kurth can do against a more typical fighter.

MK has earned a reputation as a fighter in Germany and has put his butt on the line for his VT numerous times against people of various backgrounds (other KF styles, MMA, etc..) who have come to test him out.

Sean, who posts here some times, has witnessed those matches, and I have also personally met some of MK's non-VT opponents who said he was the scariest person they'd ever fought. Threw all their arsenal at him, and he completely shut them down. That's what good VT does.

Don't believe it? Ask around in Germany, or go give it a shot.


Jai Harmon

Jerry Yeung

Neither of these guys are from the same line, and you know that. You have been told.


Jerry likes to reach out and use the "neck pulling hand" from the dummy form. Does that count as an "application"??

A pretty useless application, since he rarely accomplishes anything by it and doesn't know what to do once he gets it on. Looks like a display of dominance, more than anything.

[LFJ]

Speed of the video is obviously increased , I just noticed that ,that is all.

lol

That's a very nice compliment! Probably the jump cuts between clips of action being too fast for your brain to process giving the illusion that it is inhumanly fast. In reality... he's just fast.

[guy b.]

Basically , I have to agree with everything and cannot say what I thinlk? Of course everyone has the right to do whatever they like ,I was called a fool for saying the same thing , but I also have a right not to agree with eberything , or maybe not . Speed of the video is obviously increased , I just noticed that ,that is all. If stating the obvius is trolling maybe I should not comment anything at all ...

Please do say what you think. It won't bother me and I welcome discussion

[KPM]

MK has earned a reputation as a fighter in Germany and has put his butt on the line for his VT numerous times against people of various backgrounds (other KF styles, MMA, etc..) who have come to test him out.

---Great! Those are the clips I would like to see! Why are none of them up online?



Neither of these guys are from the same line, and you know that. You have been told.

---Are they not both WSLVT???? Are you now saying that Phillip Bayer's version of WSLVT is the only "real" thing?



A pretty useless application, since he rarely accomplishes anything by it and doesn't know what to do once he gets it on. Looks like a display of dominance, more than anything.


---But an "application" nonetheless. So what it comes down to is that we have video of WSL himself teaching applications from the forms. We have video of various people from different branches of the WSLVT lineage doing applications. So maybe it is Phillip Bayer that came up with this idea that WSLVT has absolutely NO applications??? Realize I'm not saying that as a bad thing. Systems should grow and evolve and each prominent teacher should use their own insight. I'm pointing this out as a very possible explanation for what you have been saying for awhile on different forums and what we actually see on-line. You keep saying go and study WSLVT if I really want to know. But apparently I couldn't go to David Petersen, Gary Lam, Wang Xi Ping, Jai Harmon, or Jerry Yeung. And it seems that list just keeps getting longer and it is seeming like you really mean I need to go and train with a Phillip Bayer student. And you tend to try and generalize what you write about as being "real" Ip Man VT", when it doesn't even seem to generalize to all WSLVT. There just seems to be a disconnect here somewhere. And I know....you are going to point out to me that I have been told numerous times that the disconnect is because Ip Man taught only a very few (it seems only WSL) his "real" and complete system and all the others either didn't stay around long enough, weren't good enough students, or have gone off and filled in gaps due to incomplete knowledge. I'm just still not sure I buy that.

[LFJ]

---Great! Those are the clips I would like to see! Why are none of them up online?

Why don't you ask him?


---Are they not both WSLVT???? Are you now saying that Phillip Bayer's version of WSLVT is the only "real" thing?

Just different, and I didn't even mentioned PB.


So what it comes down to is that we have video of WSL himself teaching applications from the forms. We have video of various people from different branches of the WSLVT lineage doing applications.

And we have a guy (hint: you) who has no idea what he's talking about.

[LFJ]

I'm pointing this out as a very possible explanation for what you have been saying for awhile on different forums and what we actually see on-line.

The internet isn't really a great place to learn VT, especially when you are trying to piece things together on your own with 0 prior knowledge or experience.


I'm just still not sure I buy that.

I don't care.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Everyone and every system trains applications to a certain degree, much like one learns the alphabet then words then sentences, etc..

In the end, the proof of the validity of ANY training methodology is in the pudding and that "pudding" for Martial arts is VS other trained Martial artist actively trying to beat your ass.

[guy b.]

Everyone and every system trains applications to a certain degree, much like one learns the alphabet then words then sentences, etc..

In the end, the proof of the validity of ANY training methodology is in the pudding and that "pudding" for Martial arts is VS other trained Martial artist actively trying to beat your ass.

I understand that you are probably trying to see both sides and defuse the argument but WSL VT doesn't train applications. There is no "if this then this" stimulus response type training. There is no alphabet then sentences type approach in terms of the forms and drills. It is a very simple concept based system.

[guy b.]

Great! Those are the clips I would like to see! Why are none of them up online?

Please direct your crying in the direction of Michael Kurth. I don't speak for him. Given that he isn't posting gym sparring on the internet at the moment I doubt that your anger and frustration will make him change his mind. He will probably just invite you to come and see for yourself.


Are they not both WSLVT???? Are you now saying that Phillip Bayer's version of WSLVT is the only "real" thing?

There are WSL VT teachers not from PB who are teaching the same thing. It is strange that you always focus on the ones doing something different.


So what it comes down to is that we have video of WSL himself teaching applications from the forms. We have video of various people from different branches of the WSLVT lineage doing applications. You keep saying go and study WSLVT if I really want to know. But apparently I couldn't go to David Petersen, Gary Lam, Wang Xi Ping, Jai Harmon, or Jerry Yeung. And you tend to try and generalize what you write about as being "real" Ip Man VT", when it doesn't even seem to generalize to all WSLVT.

Gary Lam, WZP and WKL are teaching their own thing. We have discussed the others. There must be a reason you don't want to accept standard WSL VT explanations from people doing standard WSL VT and I think it is because you are too scared to entertain the idea that you need to change what you do. There can't be many other viable reasons at this point. Either try it, or don't try it and forget about it. Going on about it constantly just shows how much it bothers you.


So maybe it is Phillip Bayer that came up with this idea that WSLVT has absolutely NO applications???

No, it is standard WSL VT which is the same as YM VT.


There just seems to be a disconnect here somewhere

The disconnect is that you are a fundamentally dishonest person and cannot even tell the truth to yourself. I can't help you with this, I am sorry


Ip Man taught only a very few..all the others either didn't stay around long enough, weren't good enough students, or have gone off and filled in gaps due to incomplete knowledge

Correct

[sanjuro_ronin]

I understand that you are probably trying to see both sides and defuse the argument but WSL VT doesn't train applications. There is no "if this then this" stimulus response type training. There is no alphabet then sentences type approach in terms of the forms and drills. It is a very simple concept based system.

If you are making a fist, you are learning an alphabet and if you are taught how to use it and where, you are learning a sentence.
It's all fine and dandy THINKING you are doing something special and unique, as long as you realize that THINKING something doesn't make it so.

[LFJ]

There are WSL VT teachers not from PB who are teaching the same thing. It is strange that you always focus on the ones doing something different.

The disconnect is that you are a fundamentally dishonest person

Correct!

And how many times has this strawman been taken down on the other forum? Several dozen, easy!

Yet, here he comes again back to singling out PB for some reason to pit him against other well-known instructors.

A very dishonest and divisive person...

[LFJ]

If you are making a fist, you are learning an alphabet and if you are taught how to use it and where, you are learning a sentence.

The point is, this sort of thinking doesn't exist in WSLVT:

Alphabet = techniques from forms
Words = 1:1 application drills
Sentences = use in fighting


It's all fine and dandy THINKING you are doing something special and unique, as long as you realize that THINKING something doesn't make it so.

I don't think anything is "special" about WSLVT, but it is a different approach.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The point is, this sort of thinking doesn't exist in WSLVT:

Alphabet = techniques from forms
Words = 1:1 application drills
Sentences = use in fighting



I don't think anything is "special" about WSLVT, but it is a different approach.

Hogwash.
Doesn't matter if you THINK this sort of thinking doesn't exist because it quite clearly does.
You can call it "concept based dish washing" and it won't change what it is.

Seems like you guys are simply doing what everyone else is and calling it something else, which is fine but don't think that it makes WHAT you are doing anything special.
That said, I will give you the "different approach".

[LFJ]

Hogwash.
Doesn't matter if you THINK this sort of thinking doesn't exist because it quite clearly does.

Not in WSLVT. And how do you know better?


Seems like you guys are simply doing what everyone else is and calling it something else, which is fine

How would you know?


but don't think that it makes WHAT you are doing anything special.

Who said it did?


That said, I will give you the "different approach".

Then it's not "simply doing what everyone else is".

[wckf92]

probably best directed to LFJ or Guy... but is this young guy learning the "PB" method? I assume he is since he is a student of KG...but was wondering if you two could tell if his body methods, flow, coordination, timing, muk jong are fairly consistent with PB's European students(?). Thanks.

http://www.vingtsunusa.com/news.html

(scroll down to the clip of KG and ? ).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Are you telling me that you never even ONCE told or showed someone how to make a fist? where to hit with it?

[LFJ]

Are you telling me that you never even ONCE told or showed someone how to make a fist? where to hit with it?

A punch is not 1:1 application, i.e. not "when they do that, you do this".

It doesn't fit into this type of methodology;

Alphabet = techniques from forms (e.g. taan-sau)
Words = 1:1 application drills (taan-da to block hooks)
Sentences = use in fighting (yeah right!)

[LFJ]

tell if his body methods, flow, coordination, timing, muk jong are fairly consistent with PB's European students(?).

Are you trying to compare skill or method? He has been to training with PB in Europe along with European students. The drilling is pretty standard.

[wckf92]

Are you trying to compare skill or method? He has been to training with PB in Europe along with European students. The drilling is pretty standard.

Method.
Thanks. Yeah I am sometimes near their area and may stop in if the opportunity presents itself...so just wanted to know if what they do (or at least the stuff in the video) looked the same or similar. Thx.

[guy b.]

If you are making a fist, you are learning an alphabet and if you are taught how to use it and where, you are learning a sentence.
It's all fine and dandy THINKING you are doing something special and unique, as long as you realize that THINKING something doesn't make it so.

There is no appication based training in WSL VT. I would suggest you try it.

[guy b.]

Hogwash.
Doesn't matter if you THINK this sort of thinking doesn't exist because it quite clearly does.
You can call it "concept based dish washing" and it won't change what it is.

Seems like you guys are simply doing what everyone else is and calling it something else, which is fine but don't think that it makes WHAT you are doing anything special.
That said, I will give you the "different approach".

This is not correct. Why comment from a position of ignorance?

[guy b.]

Are you telling me that you never even ONCE told or showed someone how to make a fist? where to hit with it?

There is no stimulus respnse training in WSL VT. This is what application based training is. WSL VT not a reactive system

[Sihing73]

Guys,

If someone tells me the sky is pink despite all evidence to the contrary and nothing can change their minds it is hardly worth it to keep trying.

It is pretty obvious to me that we will not all agree.
No point in continuing the argument of whether something has applications or is application based.

Of course without some common ground some things are unable to be discussed.

[guy b.]

Guys,

If someone tells me the sky is pink despite all evidence to the contrary and nothing can change their minds it is hardly worth it to keep trying.

It is pretty obvious to me that we will not all agree.
No point in continuing the argument of whether something has applications or is application based.

Of course without some common ground some things are unable to be discussed.

I think a bit off to compare a fact about WSL VT with the sky being pink despite all evidence to the contrary. Nobody here has any evidence about what constitutes WSL VT apart from those who do WSL VT. And yet there seem to be a lot of opinions about it. Strange

[Sihing73]

You do not need to be a mechanic to drive a car
And no matter how confident in your ability to understand the principle of driving, if you don't know how to put those principles into action you will never be a good driver.

[KPM]

Correct!

And how many times has this strawman been taken down on the other forum? Several dozen, easy!

Yet, here he comes again back to singling out PB for some reason to pit him against other well-known instructors.

A very dishonest and divisive person...


So you're calling me a liar again???? Look, you have described your understanding of WSLVT and how it is trained. When footage or writings from WSLVT people are pointed out that contradict what you have been saying and describing, your response has always been along the lines of ....they aren't doing "real" WSLVT! The only time you have provided footage that supports what you are saying, it is of PB or one of PB's students. So the obvious conclusion is that what you are describing probably comes from PB. I am not being dishonest about that!

I've said I don't follow your whole thing about "no applications in WSLVT" and you say I must be a moron because it has been explained to me multiple times in the past. But the problem is it has never been explained adequately or explained well! I see some logical flaws in what you are saying. And I'm not the only one! Multiple people have said the same in the MT forum in the past, and it seems that both Dave and Sanjuro have seen it here recently. I am not being dishonest about that!

You said the WSLVT forms don't teach applications, and so I provided footage of WSL himself teaching applications from the forms. He showed using the rearward palms from the SNT form to break a rear bear hug, the Jeep Sau movement from the CK form to break a lapel grab, and others. You never even attempted to explain how these were NOT actually examples of applications from the forms. Your response was simply to say I don't know what I'm talking about.

You call me divisive, but you are the one with a track record of taking shots at anyone that does things differently than your WSLVT or anyone that questions what you believe. Just look how nasty Guy B. can get about things! Just look how negative you were about TWC and the shots you took at Phil. And you call me divisive?

You and Guy B. have gotten downright nasty.....like people threatened by someone challenging their religous beliefs! In the process you've called me a liar, a troll, a moron, autistic, and a psychopathic *******. I really don't think I'm the one with the problem here! :cool:

So, like Dave said, it is time to agree to disagree. But when you start calling something "application-based" in a derogatory way, or telling someone their Wing Chun is "broken" because it does not match your understanding of WSLVT, then I might just have something to say about it! ;)

[LFJ]

I think a bit off to compare a fact about WSL VT with the sky being pink despite all evidence to the contrary. Nobody here has any evidence about what constitutes WSL VT apart from those who do WSL VT. And yet there seem to be a lot of opinions about it. Strange

I don't know why there is this strange desire to insist that we are doing the same thing without knowing and despite explanations clearly showing we are not.

To reach this conclusion they have to play with words and ignore what "1:1 technique application" means. It's really a dishonest tactic.

Just strange why they feel the need to do this.

[LFJ]

So you're calling me a liar again????

Yes, because here you are with the same lie I have corrected now 5 times yet again!


calling something "application-based" in a derogatory way


the shots you took at Phil.

This is a lie as well. I never said anything personal to or about him.


You never even attempted to explain how these were NOT actually examples of applications from the forms. Your response was simply to say I don't know what I'm talking about.

The problem is you don't know what you're talking about.

You have been told why he showed things like that to certain audiences (seminar attendees, occasional visitors), and what his legit, longterm students all learned from him.

But you don't want to go learn from or listen to any of them. You'd rather "learn" VT by yourself online, the way you learned most of your other stuff.

[LFJ]

and how you often use your term in a derogatory way when referring to other systems.

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.

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.


Then after all this;


I'll leave this here for those that look down their noses at "application-based" training.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2O6mQkFiiw

And now again!


when you start calling something "application-based" in a derogatory way


you've called me a liar, a troll, a moron, autistic, and a psychopathic *******.

So, if you're not one of these things, then please tell me WTF your problem is!

[guy b.]

You do not need to be a mechanic to drive a car
And no matter how confident in your ability to understand the principle of driving, if you don't know how to put those principles into action you will never be a good driver.

You do need to know some factual details about the practice of WSL VT in order to draw any conclusions about WSL VT. If people will stop jumping to conclusions without any knowledge, e.g. you, Sanjuro Ronin, KPM (although he is just trolling), then I am sure the discussion can move forward in a productive way.

I have no idea why people are treating it as some kind of offensive thing that we train in a different way?

[Frost]

I have no idea why people are treating it as some kind of offensive thing that we train in a different way?

It might be because there's no actual evidence that you actually train differently than anyone else apart from some posts post seem to have a problem believing, there's also no evidence even if you do train differently that it's better or even effective, only one person from PBs wsvt has ever posted a clip of themselves, or rather had one posted and it was terrible.

Now there's plenty of examples of how elite sportsman and fighters train, and it sounds very different to what you are talking about, what i cant understand is why others care? Seriously 11 pages plus on this, it's not like wsvt is producing people cleaning up in full contact matches or challenge matches and we all want a piece of the magic....

[guy b.]

So you're calling me a liar again???? Look, you have described your understanding of WSLVT and how it is trained. When footage or writings from WSLVT people are pointed out that contradict what you have been saying and describing, your response has always been along the lines of ....they aren't doing "real" WSLVT! The only time you have provided footage that supports what you are saying, it is of PB or one of PB's students. So the obvious conclusion is that what you are describing probably comes from PB. I am not being dishonest about that!

Yes you are being dishonest about that. LFJ has mentioned others who teach mainstream WSL VT. You like to focus on the ones that have changed the system by their own admission or who have an incomplete understanding. This is because you are trolling.


I've said I don't follow your whole thing about "no applications in WSLVT" and you say I must be a moron because it has been explained to me multiple times in the past. But the problem is it has never been explained adequately or explained well! I see some logical flaws in what you are saying. And I'm not the only one! Multiple people have said the same in the MT forum in the past, and it seems that both Dave and Sanjuro have seen it here recently. I am not being dishonest about that!

Why are you jumping to contrary conclusions about something you have never experienced? You must indeed be a moron, or a troll.


You said the WSLVT forms don't teach applications, and so I provided footage of WSL himself teaching applications from the forms. He showed using the rearward palms from the SNT form to break a rear bear hug, the Jeep Sau movement from the CK form to break a lapel grab, and others. You never even attempted to explain how these were NOT actually examples of applications from the forms. Your response was simply to say I don't know what I'm talking about.

This is because WSL's teaching at seminars has been explained to you before. This sort of thing is not WSL VT


you've called me a liar, a troll, a moron, autistic, and a psychopathic *******

So, like Dave said, it is time to agree to disagree. But when you start calling something "application-based" in a derogatory way, or telling someone their Wing Chun is "broken" because it does not match your understanding of WSLVT, then I might just have something to say about it! ;)

There is nothig derogatory about calling something application based. I am not sure why you have such a chip on your shoulder about the term. I have trained several excellent application based systems and it can be a valid approach.

A wing chun system being broken is the result of inconsistency or contradiction in understanding. Getting angry with someone pointing this out is insane because they are helping you.

If you don't like being called names then stop being a lying, tolling, autistic, psychopathic moron. Thanks

[LFJ]

It might be because there's no actual evidence that you actually train differently than anyone else apart from some posts post seem to have a problem believing,

Plenty of video and explanations. It's not a question of belief.


there's also no evidence even if you do train differently that it's better or even effective

Anyone could go find out whether it is or not.


Now there's plenty of examples of how elite sportsman and fighters train, and it sounds very different to what you are talking about,

Because we don't do set responses?


what i cant understand is why others care?

Right. If you're not willing to go find out, it's quite bizarre to sit here and make assessments from a position of complete ignorance.

[guy b.]

It might be because there's no actual evidence that you actually train differently than anyone else apart from some posts post seem to have a problem believing, there's also no evidence even if you do train differently that it's better or even effective, only one person from PBs wsvt has ever posted a clip of themselves, or rather had one posted and it was terrible.

Now there's plenty of examples of how elite sportsman and fighters train, and it sounds very different to what you are talking about, what i cant understand is why others care? Seriously 11 pages plus on this, it's not like wsvt is producing people cleaning up in full contact matches or challenge matches and we all want a piece of the magic....

The evidence is what I am telling you as someone practicing WSL VT. Nobody should have any problem believing factual details about practice of the system from practitioners.

I'm not making any grand claims about effectiveness vs other approaches- try and see. Or don't and shut up about it.

Basically KPM has made it his life's work to expose WSL VT as bogus in some way. As you say, why would he even care? Makes no sense.

But then why would you care to comment on the thread since we aren't cleaning up in full contact matches:confused:?

[guy b.]

Plenty of video and explanations. It's not a question of belief.



Anyone could go find out whether it is or not.



Because we don't do set responses?



Right. If you're not willing to go find out, it's quite bizarre to sit here and make assessments from a position of complete ignorance.



I do find it vaguely amusing that this guy Frost, who must be quite old by now given amount of time spent on this and other forums (forums FFS!), is still, after all these years, basing his decisions about martial arts on what the elite competitors in a few sports are doing, despite the fact that his chances of ever reaching such a level of performance must be very near to zero. It's like a portion of his brain somehow stuck at the time when he was 24, while the rest of life and his temporal body moves slowly on.

Would you base your decision about which car to buy upon the results of the most recent F1 race, or would you make the choice based on more practical considerations corresponding to your actual life? Lol

[LFJ]

He's also commented on sparring videos that have been posted, same ones KPM commented on, favorably as well, yet, they both seem to forget that every time they want to say they've never seen anything from WSLVT.

Selective amnesia, or just lying trolls?

[KPM]

Plenty of video and explanations. .

All from PB lineage people. I've already pointed this out!!!

[KPM]

The evidence is what I am telling you as someone practicing WSL VT. Nobody should have any problem believing factual details about practice of the system from practitioners.



And yet....you wouldn't believe what Phil and I were telling you about TWC? A system that you don't practice and we do??? :confused:

[KPM]

But then why would you care to comment on the thread since we aren't cleaning up in full contact matches:confused:?

Maybe because people recognize BS when they see it, and often decide to point it out??? ;)

[LFJ]

All from PB lineage people. I've already pointed this out!!!

I have given you explanations and I don't train under PB. But, so what?

All of those videos and explanations of what's being done are telling you that our method in fact differs from other systems.

There is no reason for this difference to be unbelievable or offensive.


And yet....you wouldn't believe what Phil and I were telling you about TWC? A system that you don't practice and we do??? :confused:

What you say often doesn't match what is shown.

[KPM]

What you say often doesn't match what is shown.

Oh my God! The irony is killing me! :D

[LFJ]

Oh my God! The irony is killing me! :D

Do explain with examples.

[KPM]

Do explain with examples.

Uh....WSL....showing applications.....from the forms. Any clip of a WSLVT person outside of PB's lineage....showing Tan Da, showing applications, etc. Have you not been paying attention?

[LFJ]

Uh....WSL....showing applications.....from the forms. Any clip of a WSLVT person outside of PB's lineage....showing Tan Da, showing applications, etc. Have you not been paying attention?

These have been explained to you.

There has not been a disconnect between any video I have shown and the explanations I've given of it, while this happens very often with any video you show and explanations you give. When we analyze the action vs what you say, they don't match.

The thread on your Tang Yik Weng Chun Pole Method (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?69935-Tang-Yik-Weng-Chun-Pole-Method) is an example of this. You said your elbow was angled down toward the ground, when clearly it was parallel to the pole.

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/KPMcheung_zpsxmpysejd.png

[KPM]

Trying to start another argument!!! Dude, give it up! Get a life! I'm done with you now. But like I said, I can't promise not to speak up in the future when I see you spouting BS again.

[LFJ]

Trying to start another argument!!!

You asked why we don't believe what you say.

I showed why.

[guy b.]

And yet....you wouldn't believe what Phil and I were telling you about TWC? A system that you don't practice and we do??? :confused:

I believe what you are telling me about the purpose of the applications. I don't believe I have seen the explanation match the reality in any of the clips you posted. Just an observation of facts. If you don't want clips critiqued then don't post clips. I will then accept what you tell me, because I don't have time to waste conducting a vendetta against TWC

[guy b.]

Uh....WSL....showing applications.....from the forms. Any clip of a WSLVT person outside of PB's lineage....showing Tan Da, showing applications, etc. Have you not been paying attention?

Explained. Any others problems?

[guy b.]

Trying to start another argument!!! Dude, give it up! Get a life! I'm done with you now. But like I said, I can't promise not to speak up in the future when I see you spouting BS again.

I don't see why you take offence at people trying to help you? LFJ has been very useful in pointing out disconnects between what you say and what you and others do. You should be saying thanks.

[Frost]

The evidence is what I am telling you as someone practicing WSL VT. Nobody should have any problem believing factual details about practice of the system from practitioners.

I'm not making any grand claims about effectiveness vs other approaches- try and see. Or don't and shut up about it.

Basically KPM has made it his life's work to expose WSL VT as bogus in some way. As you say, why would he even care? Makes no sense.

But then why would you care to comment on the thread since we aren't cleaning up in full contact matches:confused:?
That's not evidence that's hearsay , I'm commentating because it's funny as feck and I'm bored, question is why are you commentating if you won't actually answer his questions in a straight forward manner or post any clips explaining what you are on about?

frankly there's zero evidence this approach is unique or it works, and if you two (not to mention Kevin) are an example of the normal everyday student attracted to this particular form of wing chun why would anyone want to try it?

But it has made this place more fun again got to love a good dispute on the wing chun forum

[LFJ]

That's not evidence that's hearsay , I'm commentating because it's funny as feck and I'm bored, question is why are you commentating if you won't actually answer his questions in a straight forward manner or post any clips explaining what you are on about?

Videos and explanations have been posted.
That is enough to demonstrate that there are differences to other systems.

If you need more you will have to go compare them for yourself.
Your refusal to examine the evidence doesn't mean there is none.

Questions have been answered as straightforwardly as possible.
Want more detail? Ask a more detailed question.


why would anyone want to try it?

Good. VT is not for everyone. Fools should stay away.

[Sihing73]

Videos and explanations have been posted.
That is enough to demonstrate that there are differences to other systems.
Good. VT is not for everyone. Fools should stay away.

The last line is somewhat arrogant and tends to insinuate an air of superiority.

I will certainly agree that what YOU do seems to be different, at least in how it is thought to be applied or not applied according to past statements.
The problem is that you do not seem to be able or willing to discuss in detail. You simply spout the same thing over and over again.

Let me ask you this, are there any guys training like you are suggesting anywhere near GA??

[GlennR]

That's not evidence that's hearsay , I'm commentating because it's funny as feck and I'm bored, question is why are you commentating if you won't actually answer his questions in a straight forward manner or post any clips explaining what you are on about?

frankly there's zero evidence this approach is unique or it works, and if you two (not to mention Kevin) are an example of the normal everyday student attracted to this particular form of wing chun why would anyone want to try it?

But it has made this place more fun again got to love a good dispute on the wing chun forum

Hey Frost..... how you been???
Ill wade in on this as "its funny as feck and im bored" :)
Youre bang on with with what you said, with all the WSLVT guys smugness....... wheres the evidence its any better?
Apart from clips of PB & MK, that apparently no one but them can understand, wheres the proof??

[guy b.]

Hey Frost..... how you been???
Ill wade in on this as "its funny as feck and im bored" :)
Youre bang on with with what you said, with all the WSLVT guys smugness....... wheres the evidence its any better?
Apart from clips of PB & MK, that apparently no one but them can understand, wheres the proof??

There's no claim that it is better. Make up your own mind. It is different though, that's for sure.

[guy b.]

That's not evidence that's hearsay

It isn't hearsay because we aren't in court. But even if we were in court I am not referring to something someone else said. Therefore not even similar to hearsay.

My description of training in WSL VT is in fact direct testimony (if you want to use the old court analogy again)


frankly there's zero evidence this approach is unique or it works

There is plenty of video and written evidence provided by practitioners which show that WSL VT is different. It isn't my responsibility if you were not paying attention. You can come and see if it works if you are interested, but you aren't, so hard to see why you are commenting :confused:

[guy b.]

The last line is somewhat arrogant and tends to insinuate an air of superiority.

I will certainly agree that what YOU do seems to be different, at least in how it is thought to be applied or not applied according to past statements.
The problem is that you do not seem to be able or willing to discuss in detail. You simply spout the same thing over and over again.

Let me ask you this, are there any guys training like you are suggesting anywhere near GA??

What detail do you need? Please be specific.

Where is GA?

[Frost]

Hey Frost..... how you been???
Ill wade in on this as "its funny as feck and im bored" :)
Youre bang on with with what you said, with all the WSLVT guys smugness....... wheres the evidence its any better?
Apart from clips of PB & MK, that apparently no one but them can understand, wheres the proof??

Hey Glenn hope the boxing is going well, i have access to world class MMA and no gi grappling, very good BBJ and judo, excellent bak mei so what on earth would make me search out WSLVT do i really want to be associated with smug idiots like LFJ who won't post a single clip of themselves doing anything because they aren't that interested or bothered what people think, but umm DO seem bothered enough to make endless posts though..
Strange that

Anyone who has been around good fighters knows that the training it takes to become a good fighter is pretty straight forward and uniform across all styles, the particular rules you compete in or lack of them dictate strategies to a certain extend but the training methods are pretty much standard, so when someone claims a unique way of viewing training and fighting but can't post anything outside of compliant none contact work it makes my spidey sense tingle....

In any other physical endeavour such claims would be laughed out of town,

[Sihing73]

What detail do you need? Please be specific.

Where is GA?

To be honest, I really do not need anything specific anymore.
My interest is not that high at this point.

GA is the State of Georgia in the US.

A definition of Insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

This thread would certainly fit that definition regarding some of the posts and responses given. :rolleyes:

[LFJ]

The problem is that you do not seem to be able or willing to discuss in detail. You simply spout the same thing over and over again.

Bullsh!t. I answered your questions in detail and you ignored it.

I also asked you what part of my answer you were having trouble with. Again, you ignored it.

If you want an even more detailed answer, ask a more detailed question.

If you don't want the same answer, ask a different question. Don't just restate the same freaking question over and over.


Let me ask you this, are there any guys training like you are suggesting anywhere near GA??

Not to my knowledge.

[Sihing73]

Bullsh!t. I answered your questions in detail and you ignored it.

I also asked you what part of my answer you were having trouble with. Again, you ignored it.

If you want an even more detailed answer, ask a more detailed question.

If you don't want the same answer, ask a different question. Don't just restate the same freaking question over and over.



Not to my knowledge.


Your answers are like the following:

Question:
How would one get to City Hall from 123 Park Ave in anytown USA.
Please provide specific directions. ?

Your answer:
We drive there.

Response:
Please be more specific, can you provide actual directions?

Your response:
We do not use directions, we just go there.

Response:
That makes no sense and is not any help.
It also does not answer the question

Your response:
It does answer the question in great detail.
You are just incapable of understanding.

Response:
Not worth asking as no answers are forthcoming.

That is an example of how you seem to respond.
Of course, to your mind you have answered in great detail.
The truth is that the rest of the world would seem to not agree.

[LFJ]

i have access to...excellent bak mei

"Hearsay". No evidence you do. Where are your sparring vids?

[LFJ]

That is an example of how you seem to respond.
Of course, to your mind you have answered in great detail.
The truth is that the rest of the world would seem to not agree.

Bullsh!t.

Here is a real example from earlier in this thread of your question and my answer, which you ignored.



When you guys do Chi Sau (which no one is saying is fighting) do you use Taun, Bong and other "techniques"?
Do you ever use these "techniques" in fighting?
If so then I would submit that you train applications. :)No. In pun-sau, taan and fuk are antagonistic training tools for developing VT punching. Neither are "techniques" for fighting. Bong ensures squared facing while training the punches, and helps prevent overturning for example in seung-ma/teui-ma drills.

We don't fight with both arms equally extended like this, and none of this will show up as "techniques" in fighting.

If this is not understandable, let me know what part you're having trouble with.

If it's not enough detail for you, ask a more detailed question. Simple.

[Sihing73]

"Hearsay". No evidence you do. Where are your sparring vids?

Where are yours???

It would seem that the empirical evidence does not support your claims.

Is this a clip of your training??
I do not see any "techniques" or 1:1 applications so I immediately thought of you :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y3uALLNY4A

This video would seem to show that when one has faith in an unrealistic method it often fails.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I

Sorry, I am positing this in fun but hope it is understandable.

After all, according to you, the forms do not teach any applications.
In a fight you do not use any of the techniques from the form.
You ask others for videos but you don't show any of you doing anything.

I gotta admit that at first I thought we could actually get past differences and have a conversation.
Then more of the same non answers and obvious attitude of superiority.
Now I am just bored and laughing at how silly you sound.

Too bad there is no one training near where I live.
I would love to see this approach in person.
Would like to see how one fights without applications.
I somehow feel it would be like the first video. :rolleyes:

[guy b.]

i have access to world class MMA and no gi grappling, very good BBJ and judo

I am sure you are fitting loads of that into your middle aged desk jockey life. You are surely in peak physical condition and getting the most out of training methodologies based upon the abilities of top sportsmen in their 20s who are training every day.

As far as BJJ goes, it is a very good traditional system and a good adition to VT.


excellent bak mei so what on earth would make me search out WSLVT

:confused: I don't think there is much more in the youtube world of Bak Mei clips than you will find in terms of WSL VT. Why then Bak Mei? No "evidence" of BM "tearing it up in MMA comps". No BM based champions in sporting events. Just the usual TMA type of stuff. Shouldn't you be rejecting this out of hand?


Anyone who has been around good fighters knows that the training it takes to become a good fighter is pretty straight forward and uniform across all styles, the particular rules you compete in or lack of them dictate strategies to a certain extend but the training methods are pretty much standard

Training methods are not remotely similar between for example BJJ and (say) boxing.


so when someone claims a unique way of viewing training and fighting but can't post anything outside of compliant none contact work it makes my spidey sense tingle

Many sports MA will do a large amount of cooperative training.The difference in WSL VT training compared to other wing chun is that applications are not taught. This does not mean that sparring and other contact training is not done- in fact it is an essential element. If you want to see it then you will need to go and see it, simple as that.

[guy b.]

To be honest, I really do not need anything specific anymore.
My interest is not that high at this point

If you are not interested then it was nice to talk to you, goodbye.

Please don't allow yourself to start trolling the thread like KPM, that would be a bit sad.

[guy b.]

In any other physical endeavour such claims would be laughed out of town,

What are these claims?

[Sihing73]

Bullsh!t.

Here is a real example from earlier in this thread of your question and my answer, which you ignored.

No. In pun-sau, taan and fuk are antagonistic training tools for developing VT punching. Neither are "techniques" for fighting. Bong ensures squared facing while training the punches, and helps prevent overturning for example in seung-ma/teui-ma drills.

Not ignored, it simply makes no sense.
If you have Taun, and other things in your poon sau or other training, and do not use those techniques when fighting, then what do you use???

Now please provide an actual answer not the same old verbage of we do not use 1:1 applications.

I would really like to know what you do if and when you fight.
Cause if you honestly have no applications I know some people who would love to mug you.
Of course they would not really be mugging you but would be using the way of not working to make money. :eek:

[LFJ]

Where are yours???

It would seem that the empirical evidence does not support your claims.

Is this a clip of your training??
I do not see any "techniques" or 1:1 applications so I immediately thought of you :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y3uALLNY4A

This video would seem to show that when one has faith in an unrealistic method it often fails.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I

Sorry, I am positing this in fun but hope it is understandable.

After all, according to you, the forms do not teach any applications.
In a fight you do not use any of the techniques from the form.
You ask others for videos but you don't show any of you doing anything.

I gotta admit that at first I thought we could actually get past differences and have a conversation.
Then more of the same non answers and obvious attitude of superiority.
Now I am just bored and laughing at how silly you sound.

Too bad there is no one training near where I live.
I would love to see this approach in person.
Would like to see how one fights without applications.
I somehow feel it would be like the first video. :rolleyes:

Well hey, jackazz, the one not engaging in serious conversation here between the two of us is you.

I don't care about Frost's videos. I was mocking him, because none of the "evidence" he demands from others is forthcoming from himself.

[LFJ]

Not ignored, it simply makes no sense.
If you have Taun, and other things in your poon sau or other training, and do not use those techniques when fighting, then what do you use???

I said taan is a training tool for the punch. We punch in fighting, we do not use the training tool.

Why is this difficult to understand?


I would really like to know what you do if and when you fight.
Cause if you honestly have no applications I know some people who would love to mug you.

That's retarded. Having no preset 1:1 application ideas or drills does not mean we don't punch people.

[Sihing73]

Well hey, jackazz, the one not engaging in serious conversation here between the two of us is you.

I don't care about Frost's videos. I was mocking him, because none of the "evidence" he demands from others is forthcoming from himself.

Ah, when unable to respond with an intelligent answer you result to insults and profanity ;)

I would say that is very telling of your level of skill.

It is good that we don't live near each other, if I can get inside your head and elicit such a reaction on an internet forum imagine how much control I would have in person. :eek:

You sir are very amusing and predictable.

[LFJ]

:confused: I don't think there is much more in the youtube world of Bak Mei clips than you will find in terms of WSL VT. Why then Bak Mei? No "evidence" of BM "tearing it up in MMA comps". No BM based champions in sporting events. Just the usual TMA type of stuff. Shouldn't you be rejecting this out of hand?



Training methods are not remotely similar between for example BJJ and (say) boxing.



Many sports MA will do a large amount of cooperative training.The difference in WSL VT training compared to other wing chun is that applications are not taught. This does not mean that sparring and other contact training is not done- in fact it is an essential element. If you want to see it then you will need to go and see it, simple as that.

Right.....

[guy b.]

Where are yours???

It would seem that the empirical evidence does not support your claims.

LFJ is using Frost's usual line against him. For Frost it is all about posting video's of your favourite MMA stars winning in MMA competition. From this he conjectures that his 1x per week in the local stripmall MMA place is making him similarly effective. Of course this is nonsense.

We are both very happy to engage in written discussion of details relating to WSL VT once this constant demand for clips is put to bed.


Is this a clip of your training??
I do not see any "techniques" or 1:1 applications so I immediately thought of you :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y3uALLNY4A

This video would seem to show that when one has faith in an unrealistic method it often fails.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I

Sorry, I am positing this in fun but hope it is understandable.

After all, according to you, the forms do not teach any applications.
In a fight you do not use any of the techniques from the form.
You ask others for videos but you don't show any of you doing anything

Please don't troll


I gotta admit that at first I thought we could actually get past differences and have a conversation.
Then more of the same non answers and obvious attitude of superiority

We can have a conversation if you like. Just ask what you want to ask and I or LFJ will answer. Try not to forget answers you have heard before. You seem determined not to have a nice conversation though I have to say :confused:


Too bad there is no one training near where I live.
I would love to see this approach in person.
Would like to see how one fights without applications.
I somehow feel it would be like the first video. :rolleyes:

You can always go somewhere not near where you live. Luckily we live in an age of cheap and easy air travel.

[guy b.]

Not ignored, it simply makes no sense.
If you have Taun, and other things in your poon sau or other training, and do not use those techniques when fighting, then what do you use???

Now please provide an actual answer not the same old verbage of we do not use 1:1 applications.

I would really like to know what you do if and when you fight.
Cause if you honestly have no applications I know some people who would love to mug you.
Of course they would not really be mugging you but would be using the way of not working to make money. :eek:

We punch, we attack. It is a very simple system.

[LFJ]

Ah, when unable to respond with an intelligent answer you result to insults and profanity

It was not an intelligent post, just a pointless shot-take.

If you want to have an adult conversation, please engage in a more serious fashion.

[Sihing73]

I said taan is a training tool for the punch. We punch in fighting, we do not use the training tool.

Why is this difficult to understand?



That's retarded. Having no preset 1:1 application ideas or drills does not mean we don't punch people.

Again with the insults, as I said certainly predictable. :rolleyes:

So all you do is punch people??? :confused:

You have no parries or ways to deflect attacks???

I am impressed as I certainly wish I never needed to parry or deflect an attack but could just keep punching.
Wait, I recall seeing videos of people chasing their opponent using just chain punching. Is that what you do?
If so, then there may be something to you not having any applications. :p

[Sihing73]

It was not an intelligent post, just a pointless shot-take.

If you want to have an adult conversation, please engage in a more serious fashion.

Certainly not pointless, I got you to respond in a very predictable manner.

An example of tactics which can be used in real fighting.

Again, a confirmation of your level of skill.

Happy Friday

[LFJ]

Again with the insults, as I said certainly predictable. :rolleyes:

Don't say stupid things.


So all you do is punch people??? :confused:

You have no parries or ways to deflect attacks???

VT punching has built in defensive capabilities. That's what taan and fuk train.


I am impressed as I certainly wish I never needed to parry or deflect an attack but could just keep punching.
Wait, I recall seeing videos of people chasing their opponent using just chain punching. Is that what you do?
If so, then there may be something to you not having any applications. :p

Just quit being stupid and ask if you don't understand.

[guy b.]

Again with the insults, as I said certainly predictable. :rolleyes:

I think LFJ is responding to your trollish post before. I guess talk straight if you don't want insulted back.


So all you do is punch people??? :confused:

You have no parries or ways to deflect attacks???

The punch contains lin siu dai da, because of the way we train it


I am impressed as I certainly wish I never needed to parry or deflect an attack but could just keep punching.
Wait, I recall seeing videos of people chasing their opponent using just chain punching. Is that what you do?
If so, then there may be something to you not having any applications. :p

We don't have applications, the punch is the main weapon. It is a simple system.

[guy b.]

Certainly not pointless, I got you to respond in a very predictable manner.

An example of tactics which can be used in real fighting.

Again, a confirmation of your level of skill.

Happy Friday

Arguing on the internet =/= fighting. Not sure what striving to be a champ in the former is likely to achieve for you :confused:

[LFJ]

Again, a confirmation of your level of skill.

Asking you to stop posting like an idiot and have a serious conversation?

[Sihing73]

Don't say stupid things.



VT punching has built in defensive capabilities. That's what taan and fuk train.



Just quit being stupid and ask if you don't understand.

I have asked but you are unable or unwilling to answer.
To be honest I have to get back to work.
While I enjoy your non answers which are very revealing I do have other things to attend to right now.

As to Guy b's comment about going to someplace other than close to me, if there is someplace near where I travel I would be happy to drop by.
I am a single father with two daughters living with me so I am not free to just up and go somewhere.
Also, it is not so important to me that I wish to put myself out.
Besides, like some others, people would doubtless say I did use Wing Chun as I train other arts.
Of course, if your WC\VT etc is so good it should not matter what someone used.

I am originally from Philly so do you guys have anyone, of your mindset and approach, who trains on the East Coast of the US between Georgia and New York City???

[guy b.]

Asking you to stop posting like an idiot and have a serious conversation?

I guess he thinks he's like a matador, toying with you, waiting to strike the final blow :confused:

Bit sad really. Hope we can manage to have a normal adult conversation.

[guy b.]

I have asked but you are unable or unwilling to answer.

An answer was just provided :confused::confused::confused:

The punch contains defensive capabilities

[guy b.]

As to Guy b's comment about going to someplace other than close to me, if there is someplace near where I travel I would be happy to drop by.
I am a single father with two daughters living with me so I am not free to just up and go somewhere.
Also, it is not so important to me that I wish to put myself out

Take your daughters for a holiday in Cologne this summer

[LFJ]

I have asked but you are unable or unwilling to answer.

I have answered directly and honestly.

I asked you to help me understand what part of the answer is giving you difficulty, so that I might explain it better.

If you are having trouble with an answer, ask a followup or more detailed question.

Don't just give me this "unable or unwilling" bullsh!t and start trolling.

[Sihing73]

I guess he thinks he's like a matador, toying with you, waiting to strike the final blow :confused:

Bit sad really. Hope we can manage to have a normal adult conversation.

I am curious, have you guys honestly not gotten the idea that others think your manner of posting is full of crap??
Adult conversation where, when someone does not agree with your pov, the response is with insults and derision??

I am certainly not the only one who has made it clear that you provide no answers to questions.

If you are unhappy with the responses then either change or go somewhere you are appreciated.

I guess if it was that important to me, your illustration would be welcome.

Do you honestly think this is that serious or important to me???

Amusing.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

[LFJ]

Adult conversation where, when someone does not agree with your pov, the response is with insults and derision??

I've been trying to answer you and engage in adult conversation. It has proven difficult, because you just start trolling instead of following up.


Do you honestly think this is that serious or important to me???

Obviously not, or you would have a normal conversation, not this trolling mess you're on right now.

[Frost]

I am sure you are fitting loads of that into your middle aged desk jockey life. You are surely in peak physical condition and getting the most out of training methodologies based upon the abilities of top sportsmen in their 20s who are training every day.

As far as BJJ goes, it is a very good traditional system and a good adition to VT.



:confused: I don't think there is much more in the youtube world of Bak Mei clips than you will find in terms of WSL VT. Why then Bak Mei? No "evidence" of BM "tearing it up in MMA comps". No BM based champions in sporting events. Just the usual TMA type of stuff. Shouldn't you be rejecting this out of hand?



Training methods are not remotely similar between for example BJJ and (say) boxing.



Many sports MA will do a large amount of cooperative training.The difference in WSL VT training compared to other wing chun is that applications are not taught. This does not mean that sparring and other contact training is not done- in fact it is an essential element. If you want to see it then you will need to go and see it, simple as that.
How much i can fit in is immaterial, the fact is I and i suspect others too have access to very good material from known sources, so why they would bother with a style which seems semi cultish and attracts strange people which has no evidence of it working is beyond me.

Nope bakmei isnt tearing it up anywhere, never said it was not though did i say anywhere it was the best or make countless posts about how different unique and special it was without posting a single clip.....

Boxing and judo are very similar they both have strategies and techniques used to explain and enhance those strategies, they both drill from one end of the cooperative spectrum to the other, and both can post clips of their arts working in full competitons

[LFJ]

Nope bakmei isnt tearing it up anywhere, never said it was not though did i say anywhere it was the best or make countless posts about how different unique and special it was without posting a single clip.....

No one said VT was the best or "special". It is unique in some ways. Clips have been posted.

[guy b.]

I am certainly not the only one who has made it clear that you provide no answers to questions.

I don't understand this response:confused:

Answers were just provided to your questions. If you need more info then please ask highlighting specifics where you feel more info required.

[guy b.]

I've been trying to answer you and engage in adult conversation. It has proven difficult, because you just start trolling instead of following up.



Obviously not, or you would have a normal conversation, not this trolling mess you're on right now.

This about sums it up. A bit odd really, like mind made up to troll before starting :confused:

[guy b.]

How much i can fit in is immaterial, the fact is I and i suspect others too have access to very good material from known sources, so why they would bother with a style which seems semi cultish and attracts strange people which has no evidence of it working is beyond me

Amount you can fit in and physical condition are intensely important for sport styles. Many things you see working in MMA, boxing, MT and other comp formats only work because the competitors are incredibly well conditioned young males training daily. Much of it is very inapproporiate to an old guy like you, especially as martial arts for fighting rather than weekend hobby.

They also (with the exception of BJJ, some Judo) lack strategy for the fight and ideas about fighting, i.e. they are not martial arts systems.

I think that most people have good access to decent sports based MA in most developed countries, me included. The reason that I do WSL VT is that it provides something not available from those other sources. It means nothing to me if you try WSL VT. No idea why you keep commenting on the wing chun forum really?


Nope bakmei isnt tearing it up anywhere, never said it was not though did i say anywhere it was the best or make countless posts about how different unique and special it was without posting a single clip

If you were being consistent then by your own criteria for judging MA systems you should reject Bak Mei. It doesn't make logical sense for you to be training this system, given what you tend to say here. Why the inconsistency? This is really strange.


Boxing and judo are very similar they both have strategies and techniques used to explain and enhance those strategies, they both drill from one end of the cooperative spectrum to the other, and both can post clips of their arts working in full competitons

The boxing and judo training methodologies are entirely different, with judo containing a lot more cooperative training and application based training. Judo is also a martial art with strategy and ideas for fighting, boxing not. There is a standardised approach to teaching judo, no such thing for boxing, it being only a set of competition rules. Different boxing coaches have their own theories or styles, some good, some not so good. Utterly different. Makes me wonder if you ever tried either?:confused:

[guy b.]

No one said VT was the best or "special". It is unique in some ways. Clips have been posted.

People like Frost assume arrogance from non-grovelling replies.

People like KPM assume an attitude of superiority when you don't pat them on the head and tell them they are special.

:)

[Sihing73]

The boxing and judo training methodologies are entirely different, with judo containing a lot more cooperative training and application based training. Judo is also a martial art with strategy and ideas for fighting, boxing not. There is a standardised approach to teaching judo, no such thing for boxing, it being only a set of competition rules. Different boxing coaches have their own theories or styles, some good, some not so good. Utterly different. Makes me wonder if you ever tried either?:confused:

Seriously :confused: Have you ever done any boxing???
While there are certainly some variance I think you will find that all boxing training has the same punches, bag work, mitt or pad work, footwork and sparring etc. Again, some differences but all built upon the same platform.

I also think that most coaches would say their fighters have to have a plan or "strategy" when they enter the ring.

Please keep posting as this is truly enlightening.

[guy b.]

Makes me wonder if you ever tried either?


Seriously Have you ever done any boxing???

Lol at the same line right back, sounds a bit desperate.

Yes I did quite a lot when I was younger :)


While there are certainly some variance I think you will find that all boxing training has the same punches, bag work, mitt or pad work, footwork and sparring etc. Again, some differences but all built upon the same platform.

You could only possibly think this if you had trained at the most superficial level, e.g. boxercise? There is a world of difference between different boxing trainers. Bag work and pad work vary immensely and are very personal, end goal of training on same apparatus can be very different. Many variations exist in footwork, methodology, and ring strategy to the extent that learning from different trainers can be akin to learning a different style altogether.


I also think that most coaches would say their fighters have to have a plan or "strategy" when they enter the ring

Ring strategy appropriate for a competition under boxing rules, not for fighting


Please keep posting as this is truly enlightening

I am very happy to keep helping you to learn about things you haven't experienced before. Just ask if you need anything else.

[KPM]

The last line is somewhat arrogant and tends to insinuate an air of superiority.

?

Which comes across on a regular basis regardless of how much they try and deny it.

[Frost]

Amount you can fit in and physical condition are intensely important for sport styles. Many things you see working in MMA, boxing, MT and other comp formats only work because the competitors are incredibly well conditioned young males training daily. Much of it is very inapproporiate to an old guy like you, especially as martial arts for fighting rather than weekend hobby.

They also (with the exception of BJJ, some Judo) lack strategy for the fight and ideas about fighting, i.e. they are not martial arts systems.

I think that most people have good access to decent sports based MA in most developed countries, me included. The reason that I do WSL VT is that it provides something not available from those other sources. It means nothing to me if you try WSL VT. No idea why you keep commenting on the wing chun forum really?



If you were being consistent then by your own criteria for judging MA systems you should reject Bak Mei. It doesn't make logical sense for you to be training this system, given what you tend to say here. Why the inconsistency? This is really strange.



The boxing and judo training methodologies are entirely different, with judo containing a lot more cooperative training and application based training. Judo is also a martial art with strategy and ideas for fighting, boxing not. There is a standardised approach to teaching judo, no such thing for boxing, it being only a set of competition rules. Different boxing coaches have their own theories or styles, some good, some not so good. Utterly different. Makes me wonder if you ever tried either?:confused:

A simple strategy and principle i have seen taught by every coach i have ever worked with in boxing is not to throw a power shot until you are in range to land it you never want to over extend it as it leaves you open for a counter. this is taught via pad work, bag work and varying levels of sparring, it is taught directly by technique work , another is to use your jab to get in range to land your power shots and to keep your opponent at range, again this is a strategy taught directly through technique work on the pads and in partner work, using exactly the same technique in training as you would in an actual fight.

Another boxing strategy is if you need to get your front foot on the outside of your opponent's if he is a south paw, this is taught directly through technique work on the pads and sparring. Gasp strategy taught via technique usage.

Similarly a strategy and principle in judo is to off balance your opponent and to attach him to you before you throw him, this is taught via uchikomi drills, throw isolation drills and randori with different levels of resistance. For instance on an ippon Seoi nage i ensure their is distance between us i initial a upward pull as i turn in order to raise my opponents base into his toes and continue to spin attaching him to my back, i don't reach back with my other arm to catch the arm i wanting throw him with because that breaks my structure, another judo strategy is always speak to keep your structure and break there's, i only throw when he is attached and off balanced, if he pulls back i drop to an normal Seoi nage so i am not meeting force with force another judo strategy, or comrpmisif my base without breaking his....Look three basic judo principles and strategies taught using one technique...

And also notice that all are re-enforced and drilled into our via drills directly related to, and closely resembling your competition format using techniques you will use in that environment

[guy b.]

A simple strategy and principle i have seen taught by every coach i have ever worked with in boxing is not to throw a power shot until you are in range to land it you never want to over extend it as it leaves you open for a counter. this is taught via pad work, bag work and varying levels of sparring, it is taught directly by technique work , another is to use your jab to get in range to land your power shots and to keep your opponent at range, again this is a strategy taught directly through technique work on the pads and in partner work, using exactly the same technique in training as you would in an actual fight.

Another boxing strategy is if you need to get your front foot on the outside of your opponent's if he is a south paw, this is taught directly through technique work on the pads and sparring. Gasp strategy taught via technique usage.

Similarly a strategy and principle in judo is to off balance your opponent and to attach him to you before you throw him, this is taught via uchikomi drills, throw isolation drills and randori with different levels of resistance. For instance on an ippon Seoi nage i ensure their is distance between us i initial a upward pull as i turn in order to raise my opponents base into his toes and continue to spin attaching him to my back, i don't reach back with my other arm to catch the arm i wanting throw him with because that breaks my structure, another judo strategy is always speak to keep your structure and break there's, i only throw when he is attached and off balanced, if he pulls back i drop to an normal Seoi nage so i am not meeting force with force another judo strategy, or comrpmisif my base without breaking his....Look three basic judo principles and strategies taught using one technique...

And also notice that all are re-enforced and drilled into our via drills directly related to, and closely resembling your competition format using techniques you will use in that environment

This answers nothing in the post you were responding to:confused:

[GlennR]

Amount you can fit in and physical condition are intensely important for sport styles. Many things you see working in MMA, boxing, MT and other comp formats only work because the competitors are incredibly well conditioned young males training daily. Much of it is very inapproporiate to an old guy like you, especially as martial arts for fighting rather than weekend hobby.

As a 51yo old, can you tell me what things that wont work for me, in boxing, given that im not an " incredibly well conditioned young males training daily"?



The boxing and judo training methodologies are entirely different, with judo containing a lot more cooperative training and application based training. Judo is also a martial art with strategy and ideas for fighting, boxing not. There is a standardised approach to teaching judo, no such thing for boxing, it being only a set of competition rules. Different boxing coaches have their own theories or styles, some good, some not so good. Utterly different. Makes me wonder if you ever tried either?:confused:


Yes, that whole jab, cross, hook, uppercut, slip, weave, duck, lead leg, rear leg, lead hand, rear hand, weight transfer, leg loading,hip positioning, rhythm development, partner drills, footwork drills, pad work, floor to ceiling bag work, bag work and so on is just random stuff chucked together with no "standardised approach".......

[Sihing73]

I guess he thinks he's like a matador, toying with you, waiting to strike the final blow :confused:

Comparison to a matador is pretty accurate considering all the Bullcrap you guys are posting. :D

[KPM]

if you two (not to mention Kevin) are an example of the normal everyday student attracted to this particular form of wing chun why would anyone want to try it?



Amen to that Frost! ;)

[KPM]

Your answers are like the following:

Question:
How would one get to City Hall from 123 Park Ave in anytown USA.
Please provide specific directions. ?

Your answer:
We drive there.

Response:
Please be more specific, can you provide actual directions?

Your response:
We do not use directions, we just go there.

Response:
That makes no sense and is not any help.
It also does not answer the question

Your response:
It does answer the question in great detail.
You are just incapable of understanding.

Response:
Not worth asking as no answers are forthcoming.

That is an example of how you seem to respond.
Of course, to your mind you have answered in great detail.
The truth is that the rest of the world would seem to not agree.


That is funny as hell and spot on Dave! :D

[KPM]

I don't care about Frost's videos. I was mocking him, because none of the "evidence" he demands from others is forthcoming from himself.

Again with the irony! I'm....dying....here! :D:D:D

[Happy Tiger]

The best way to 'train' is simply to fight. Then learn, then fight summor. Stay with with your master but study closely others. Get your nose bloody. You will live and fight again.

[Happy Tiger]

Marlon Brando got his nose broke by Jack Pallance back stage of the movie Street Car Named Desire. Gave him the profile that is now legndery

[LFJ]

That is funny as hell and spot on Dave! :D

Entirely inaccurate.

The degree of detail in my responses has been proportionate to the questions.

Question:
How would one get to City Hall from 123 Park Ave in anytown USA.
Please provide specific directions. ?

Your answer:
We drive there.

The above is not at all comparable to this exchange:



When you guys do Chi Sau (which no one is saying is fighting) do you use Taun, Bong and other "techniques"?
Do you ever use these "techniques" in fighting?
If so then I would submit that you train applications. :)No. In pun-sau, taan and fuk are antagonistic training tools for developing VT punching. Neither are "techniques" for fighting. Bong ensures squared facing while training the punches, and helps prevent overturning for example in seung-ma/teui-ma drills.

We don't fight with both arms equally extended like this, and none of this will show up as "techniques" in fighting.

Response:
Please be more specific, can you provide actual directions?

Your response:
We do not use directions, we just go there.

This does not reflect his followup. I requested he ask more specific questions if he wants more detail. He did not.

In fact, it took him 5 pages of trolling to even follow up with this:



If you have Taun, and other things in your poon sau or other training, and do not use those techniques when fighting, then what do you use???
I said taan is a training tool for the punch. We punch in fighting, we do not use the training tool.


So all you do is punch people??? :confused:

You have no parries or ways to deflect attacks???VT punching has built in defensive capabilities. That's what taan and fuk train.

Answers with detail proportionate to the questions, unlike his fake questions and responses.

But after this he goes back to trolling:


I have asked but you are unable or unwilling to answer.

I have requested him to explain what part of the answers he is having trouble with, so that I might explain it further.
Or if he wants more detail, I have requested that he ask more detailed questions.

He has not attempted to engage. Not my fault.

[Frost]

This answers nothing in the post you were responding to:confused:

Are you being intentionally thick my original post was as follows

Boxing and judo are very similar they both have strategies and techniques used to explain and enhance those strategies, they both drill from one end of the cooperative spectrum to the other, and both can post clips of their arts working in full competitons you said they were different, i never said they were the same i said they followed a similar way of teaching: teaching there strategy and principles directly through the application of techniques they will use in competition, isolating them first, adding resistance later...I then posted examples of how this is done since you didn't think it was right....

What neither art does is say they don't have techniques or use a drilling training method that doesn't directly relate to how they perform under pressure....Because that's inefficient and ineffective.....And there's no prove such a method works outside of your also the other Muppets endless posts?:confused:

I actually have a new question why are you still posting? Seriously it must be obvious to even you pair by now no one here believes anything you say, and since for some god known reason neither of you dare film anything what do you expect to chance??

[LFJ]

a drilling training method that doesn't directly relate to how they perform under pressure....

Our drilling method does directly relate to how we perform under pressure.

We drill to improve upon footwork, timing, distance, facing, etc., and correct errors of over or under-reacting, freezing, overextending, overturning, leaning, chasing arms, various footwork errors, etc..

All of this relates directly to how we perform under pressure.

These errors are in fact found by training under pressure in sparring or fighting, then taken back to drills to be corrected, before pressure tested again to ensure the problems are resolved.

It is very efficient and effective for our method.

If you want proof that it works, go and experience the training.

If not interested, don't worry about it.

[guy b.]

As a 51yo old, can you tell me what things that wont work for me, in boxing, given that im not an " incredibly well conditioned young males training daily"?

Yes, that whole jab, cross, hook, uppercut, slip, weave, duck, lead leg, rear leg, lead hand, rear hand, weight transfer, leg loading,hip positioning, rhythm development, partner drills, footwork drills, pad work, floor to ceiling bag work, bag work and so on is just random stuff chucked together with no "standardised approach".......

With the exception of rhythm development and bag work these are all basic techniques containing no strategic information. This comes from the coach, and is personal to him based upon experience. Bag and pad work and understanding varies a great deal.

Boxing is not a good approach to fighting for old people because it relies upon excellent conditioning, teaches no strategy apart from ring strategy (is not a martial art), focuses only upon punching with no consideration of other aspects of fighting, focuses only on gloved punching (unsuitable for ungloved fighting), and teaches a sparring (ring strategy) rather than a fighting mindset.

[guy b.]

my original post was as follows you said they were different, i never said they were the same i said they followed a similar way of teaching: teaching there strategy and principles directly through the application of techniques they will use in competition, isolating them first, adding resistance later...I then posted examples of how this is done since you didn't think it was right....

Good judo still teaches concepts and strategy directly whereas boxing teaching varies wildly with some not teaching anything. Examples like only hit when close enough to hit and don't stand in front of their strong hand is basic to any standup fighting. If that is what you have seen in terms of ring strategy then I would change coach because he isn't teaching you anything. Many coaches have quite detailed strategy but what is taught is ring strategy rather than fighting strategy. This is because boxing is not a martial art and doesn't relate directly to fighting.


What neither art does is say they don't have techniques or use a drilling training method that doesn't directly relate to how they perform under pressure....Because that's inefficient and ineffective.....And there's no prove such a method works outside of your also the other Muppets endless posts?

I don't think anyone said that VT drilling doesn't relate to perfomance under pressure, just that it isn't application based.


I actually have a new question why are you still posting? Seriously it must be obvious to even you pair by now no one here believes anything you say, and since for some god known reason neither of you dare film anything what do you expect to chance??

I am not aware of film clips from anyone else participating in this thread? Please post links, thanks.

You forgot to answer these points by the way:


Amount you can fit in and physical condition are intensely important for sport styles. Many things you see working in MMA, boxing, MT and other comp formats only work because the competitors are incredibly well conditioned young males training daily. Much of it is very inapproporiate to an old guy like you, especially as martial arts for fighting rather than weekend hobby.


They also (with the exception of BJJ, some Judo) lack strategy for the fight and ideas about fighting, i.e. they are not martial arts systems.


If you were being consistent then by your own criteria for judging MA systems you should reject Bak Mei. It doesn't make logical sense for you to be training this system, given what you tend to say here. Why the inconsistency?

The most important question you dodged is obviously the one about Bak Mei, which brings your entire argument into question. Look forward to your answer.

[LFJ]

The most important question you dodged is obviously the one about Bak Mei, which brings your entire argument into question. Look forward to your answer.

..........

[GlennR]

With the exception of rhythm development and bag work these are all basic techniques containing no strategic information. This comes from the coach, and is personal to him based upon experience. Bag and pad work and understanding varies a great deal.


Rubbish, absolute rubbish.
The whole premise of boxing is "to hit and not get hit", its in everything boxing does. That's the strategy.


Boxing is not a good approach to fighting for old people because it relies upon excellent conditioning

You have got to be joking.


,
teaches no strategy apart from ring strategy (is not a martial art), focuses only upon punching with no consideration of other aspects of fighting, focuses only on gloved punching (unsuitable for ungloved fighting), and teaches a sparring (ring strategy) rather than a fighting mindset.

Once again, its the art of hitting without being hit..... not a bad strategy in a street fight.
The rest of your post is even more nonsense, what the hell do you base your "ideas" on boxing on???
Youve obviously done none.

[guy b.]

its the art of hitting without being hit..... not a bad strategy in a street fight

Boxing is defined by its sporting rules- these make it what it is and what it isn't.

Boxing is various different ideas and methods aimed at winning a competition under boxing rules. Some of these methods can be tangentially useful in fighting. But in order to be used for fighting the methods of boxing need serious adaption from someone thoughtful and experienced.

Boxing isn't a martial art and it doesn't have a particular strategy for the fight, because it isn't directly related to fighting. There is no loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung in boxing

[guy b.]

what the hell do you base your "ideas" on boxing on??? Youve obviously done none.

I could say the same based upon what you write. But then you say you have done some boxing, which is sad to hear.

[KPM]

Rubbish, absolute rubbish.
The whole premise of boxing is "to hit and not get hit", its in everything boxing does. That's the strategy.



You have got to be joking.


,

Once again, its the art of hitting without being hit..... not a bad strategy in a street fight.
The rest of your post is even more nonsense, what the hell do you base your "ideas" on boxing on???
Youve obviously done none.

I agree with you Glenn. To suggest that boxing is not suited for street-defense simply because it is a ring sport is pretty silly and ill-informed. To suggest that a boxer doesn't use various strategies, or isn't directly related to fighting.....what can you say about that?? :rolleyes:

[guy b.]

To suggest that a boxer doesn't use various strategies

No suh thing as "a boxer". No systematised approach. It isn't a martial art.

[KPM]

No suh thing as "a boxer". No systematised approach. It isn't a martial art.

I invite you to walk into any serious boxing gym and tell them that they don't have a "systematized approach", or that there is no such thing as a "boxer", or that what they do is "not directly related to fighting", or that they don't use good "strategy." Go ahead. Be my guest! ;)

[LFJ]

I invite you to walk into any serious boxing gym and tell them that they don't have a "systematized approach", or that there is no such thing as a "boxer", or that what they do is "not directly related to fighting", or that they don't use good "strategy." Go ahead. Be my guest! ;)

Completely failed to comprehend what he said. Oh well... nothing new in that.

[KPM]

Completely failed to comprehend what he said. Oh well... nothing new in that.

Are you saying he didn't actually mean what he wrote, or that he didn't actually say those things? :confused:

[LFJ]

Are you saying he didn't actually mean what he wrote, or that he didn't actually say those things? :confused:

Neither. I think you haven't understood what he actually means by what he wrote.

As I read it;

"No systematized approach" means "boxing" is not one thing or style. In this sense, there is no one such thing as a "boxer". Two boxers may fight with wildly different styles and train differently to suit those styles.

That means there is also no one strategy that defines "boxing". This doesn't mean boxing gyms don't teach strategy or have good strategy. Some do. Some don't. Every gym will be different because they are free to do what they find best in the ring, based on the coach's experience and for each fighter, bound only by ring rules and not codified into one style that is "boxing".

"Not directly related to fighting" means that a lot of what a boxer does is unsafe outside of the boxing ring. Things like bobbing and weaving become dangerous when kicks and knees are possible. Stances are often susceptible to leg kicks or takedowns. A typical cover defense on the inside is easily penetrated when both fighters are bareknuckled and doesn't consider other dangers than punching. Many punches rely on the gloves to protect the hand and would be dangerous to the bareknuckled puncher.

These things are not taking all possibilities of free fighting into account, only that which is within the ring rules of the sport. In this sense, it doesn't directly relate to fighting. This doesn't mean a boxer can't knock someone's block off in a street fight, though.

[guy b.]

Neither. I think you haven't understood what he actually means by what he wrote.

As I read it;

"No systematized approach" means "boxing" is not one thing or style. In this sense, there is no one such thing as a "boxer". Two boxers may fight with wildly different styles and train differently to suit those styles.

That means there is also no one strategy that defines "boxing". This doesn't mean boxing gyms don't teach strategy or have good strategy. Some do. Some don't. Every gym will be different because they are free to do what they find best in the ring, based on the coach's experience and for each fighter, bound only by ring rules and not codified into one style that is "boxing".

"Not directly related to fighting" means that a lot of what a boxer does is unsafe outside of the boxing ring. Things like bobbing and weaving become dangerous when kicks and knees are possible. Stances are often susceptible to leg kicks or takedowns. A typical cover defense on the inside is easily penetrated when both fighters are bareknuckled and doesn't consider other dangers than punching. Many punches rely on the gloves to protect the hand and would be dangerous to the bareknuckled puncher.

These things are not taking all possibilities of free fighting into account, only that which is within the ring rules of the sport. In this sense, it doesn't directly relate to fighting. This doesn't mean a boxer can't knock someone's block off in a street fight, though.


Exactly, thanks

[LFJ]

Completely failed to comprehend what he said. Oh well... nothing new in that.Are you saying he didn't actually mean what he wrote, or that he didn't actually say those things? :confused:
Neither. I think you haven't understood what he actually means by what he wrote.

Also, lol at failing to comprehend what it means to fail to comprehend. :o

[Frost]

Rubbish, absolute rubbish.
The whole premise of boxing is "to hit and not get hit", its in everything boxing does. That's the strategy.



You have got to be joking.


,

Once again, its the art of hitting without being hit..... not a bad strategy in a street fight.
The rest of your post is even more nonsense, what the hell do you base your "ideas" on boxing on???
Youve obviously done none.

Give it up Glenn like most people who have never boxed they don't have a clue about what it takes to be good at boxing, you get the usual it's for the young, you have to be supremely fit and conditioned to box, train every day etc, no that if you are competing at a high level, otherwise you can train boxing the same way you train any martial art at any age and use it very successfully in a self defense situation, the irony is there are way more clips of boxers using their art in a self defense situation than wing chun...

The other irony is they argue you will lose to a younger fitter conditioned boxer and that makes boxing useless for older people, yet somehow think wing chun is this great equaliser but again...Where's the proof it works against anyone let alone helps you defy the aging process LOL

[KPM]

Neither. I think you haven't understood what he actually means by what he wrote.

As I read it;

"No systematized approach" means "boxing" is not one thing or style. In this sense, there is no one such thing as a "boxer". Two boxers may fight with wildly different styles and train differently to suit those styles.

That means there is also no one strategy that defines "boxing". This doesn't mean boxing gyms don't teach strategy or have good strategy. Some do. Some don't. Every gym will be different because they are free to do what they find best in the ring, based on the coach's experience and for each fighter, bound only by ring rules and not codified into one style that is "boxing".

"Not directly related to fighting" means that a lot of what a boxer does is unsafe outside of the boxing ring. Things like bobbing and weaving become dangerous when kicks and knees are possible. Stances are often susceptible to leg kicks or takedowns. A typical cover defense on the inside is easily penetrated when both fighters are bareknuckled and doesn't consider other dangers than punching. Many punches rely on the gloves to protect the hand and would be dangerous to the bareknuckled puncher.

These things are not taking all possibilities of free fighting into account, only that which is within the ring rules of the sport. In this sense, it doesn't directly relate to fighting. This doesn't mean a boxer can't knock someone's block off in a street fight, though.

No. I "comprehended" what he was saying just fine! I just think it way off, is all. And I think if you brought those points up in a serious boxing gym they would laugh in your face. Again, be my guest to try that!! ;)

A "systematized approach" to boxing is training to punch from various angles, training to be mobile in the ring, using covering/bobbing/weaving, etc as a defense. While there are some variations, "boxers" stick to that pretty closely. For you to say that there is no one "boxing" is wrong. That would imply that you couldn't pick out someone with a background in boxing by watching them move. There is such a thing as a "boxer", and then there can be variations on "boxing." Just like there is such a thing as "Karate" and then there can be variations of "Karate."

While there are some vulnerabilities in what they do if they are facing someone on the street.....that does not mean that strategies used in the ring, like angling away from a direct punch, covering and returning a hit on another line, moving around with a jab to confuse before closing on another line, etc wouldn't work if facing off with an attacker in a parking lot. Heck, most Wing Chun guys use a stance that is vulnerable to leg kicks and takedowns!

You really think a boxer that has given half a thought to what he would do on the street doesn't realize he needs to cover better when he isn't using gloves, or be more careful in how he hits to protect his hands???? You don't think a boxer that takes his art seriously hasn't done some light sparring with buddies when they were neither wearing gloves?

Here is at least one guy that would disagree with what you are saying:

https://www.amazon.com/Championship-Streetfighting-Boxing-Martial-Art/dp/0873649346/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1492368734&sr=8-2&keywords=ned+beaumont


Good book. I've had it in my library for many years.

[Grumblegeezer]

no such thing as "a boxer". No systematised approach. it isn't a martial art.

Really!?!

Good thing LFJ jumped in to "clarify" so that you don't come across as a total fool.

[guy b.]

Really!?!

Good thing LFJ jumped in to "clarify" so that you don't come across as a total fool.

I don't think any unbiased person would have any difficulty understanding what I was saying. Even KPM above says that he understands.

LFJ just said the same thing using more words so not sure why that changes the message for you to seem non-foolish where it was before? :confused:

[GlennR]

Give it up Glenn like most people who have never boxed they don't have a clue about what it takes to be good at boxing, you get the usual it's for the young, you have to be supremely fit and conditioned to box, train every day etc, no that if you are competing at a high level, otherwise you can train boxing the same way you train any martial art at any age and use it very successfully in a self defense situation, the irony is there are way more clips of boxers using their art in a self defense situation than wing chun...

Bingo Frost, for a non-martial art it seems to do pretty well in self defense situations ;)


The other irony is they argue you will lose to a younger fitter conditioned boxer and that makes boxing useless for older people, yet somehow think wing chun is this great equaliser but again...Where's the proof it works against anyone let alone helps you defy the aging process LOL


Yep that massive elephant in the room...... wheres the evidence it works???
But hey, let the VT Nerds bathe in lap sao drills and clever little Chinese sayings........ its all they have after all.

[dlcox]

Neither. I think you haven't understood what he actually means by what he wrote.

As I read it;

"No systematized approach" means "boxing" is not one thing or style. In this sense, there is no one such thing as a "boxer". Two boxers may fight with wildly different styles and train differently to suit those styles.

That means there is also no one strategy that defines "boxing". This doesn't mean boxing gyms don't teach strategy or have good strategy. Some do. Some don't. Every gym will be different because they are free to do what they find best in the ring, based on the coach's experience and for each fighter, bound only by ring rules and not codified into one style that is "boxing".

"Not directly related to fighting" means that a lot of what a boxer does is unsafe outside of the boxing ring. Things like bobbing and weaving become dangerous when kicks and knees are possible. Stances are often susceptible to leg kicks or takedowns. A typical cover defense on the inside is easily penetrated when both fighters are bareknuckled and doesn't consider other dangers than punching. Many punches rely on the gloves to protect the hand and would be dangerous to the bareknuckled puncher.

These things are not taking all possibilities of free fighting into account, only that which is within the ring rules of the sport. In this sense, it doesn't directly relate to fighting. This doesn't mean a boxer can't knock someone's block off in a street fight, though.

Haven't posted on here in years, but after reading this, felt the urge to. LFJ, all of what you wrote is in direct contradiction to your very public opinion of other branches of WC as compared to VT and has a direct correlation to your post. Either your phishing or purposefully trying to get someone's goat, either way it's trolling at its finest.

Generally you at least try to tie a point in, this time, you have provided absolutely no proof of your claim that WC is superior in strategy or better systematically to boxing. You can do better than this, try harder.

[GlennR]

Haven't posted on here in years, but after reading this, felt the urge to. LFJ, all of what you wrote is in direct contradiction to your very public opinion of other branches of WC as compared to VT and has a direct correlation to your post. Either your phishing or purposefully trying to get someone's goat, either way it's trolling at its finest.

Generally you at least try to tie a point in, this time, you have provided absolutely no proof of your claim that WC is superior in strategy or better systematically to boxing. You can do better than this, try harder.

Nicely put.
To put it bluntly..... he's got nothing

[LFJ]

A "systematized approach" to boxing is training to punch from various angles, training to be mobile in the ring, using covering/bobbing/weaving, etc as a defense. While there are some variations, "boxers" stick to that pretty closely.

That is not what systematized means.

There is massive variation that creates different types of fighters in the ring, meaning there is no one system of boxing.

The reason you will find these broadly defined commonalities is because they are bound by the ring rules of the sport, not one particular system.


For you to say that there is no one "boxing" is wrong. That would imply that you couldn't pick out someone with a background in boxing by watching them move. There is such a thing as a "boxer", and then there can be variations on "boxing." Just like there is such a thing as "Karate" and then there can be variations of "Karate."

Which means you can't say "this" and only "this" is boxing, or can't guarantee that if you go into a boxing gym they will be teaching the same method as any other gym.

They are as much different systems as various karate styles.


While there are some vulnerabilities in what they do if they are facing someone on the street.....that does not mean that strategies used in the ring, like angling away from a direct punch, covering and returning a hit on another line, moving around with a jab to confuse before closing on another line, etc wouldn't work if facing off with an attacker in a parking lot.

No one said it wouldn't work.


You really think a boxer that has given half a thought to what he would do on the street doesn't realize he needs to cover better when he isn't using gloves, or be more careful in how he hits to protect his hands????

Which means things will have to be changed, in some ways drastically, from how it is in the boxing ring.


Here is at least one guy that would disagree with what you are saying:

Seriously? That guy is a moron.

[LFJ]

LFJ, all of what you wrote is in direct contradiction to your very public opinion of other branches of WC as compared to VT and has a direct correlation to your post.

What are you talking about?


you have provided absolutely no proof of your claim that WC is superior in strategy or better systematically to boxing.

Why would I provide proof of a claim I did not make?

Where are you getting this?

[LFJ]

Yep that massive elephant in the room...... wheres the evidence it works???

Waiting on the same from Frost's "excellent Bak Mei".

As has been said, based on his own criteria for judging MA systems, he should also reject Bak Mei.

He has dodged this because it undermines his entire argument against VT.

[GlennR]

Waiting on the same from Frost's "excellent Bak Mei".

As has been said, based on his own criteria for judging MA systems, he should also reject Bak Mei.

He has dodged this because it undermines his entire argument against VT.

I was talking to you.......... evidence please???

[LFJ]

I was talking to you.......... evidence please???

Have you visited a VT school or anyone good at VT?

If not, as I said, your refusal or failure to examine the evidence doesn't mean there is none.

The efficacy of a MA system is not contingent upon whether or not there are videos to be viewed online of it "tearing it up" in competition.

[GlennR]

Have you visited a VT school or anyone good at VT?

Two of Barry Lees senior students here in Australia. I guess you know who Barry is?
I was told by both of them that my WC was very good.

How many boxing gyms have you trained in???



If not, as I said, your refusal or failure to examine the evidence doesn't mean there is none.

Do i get a pass now??? Wanker.


The efficacy of a MA system is not contingent upon whether or not there are videos to be viewed online of it "tearing it up" in competition.


Who asked for a video?

So.......... evidence????

[LFJ]

Two of Barry Lees senior students here in Australia. I guess you know who Barry is?
I was told by both of them that my WC was very good.

I have no experience or directly knowledge of Barry's or his students' VT.

Are you saying their VT didn't work?


Who asked for a video?

So.......... evidence????

What exactly are you asking for on a forum then?

[guy b.]

Give it up Glenn like most people who have never boxed they don't have a clue about what it takes to be good at boxing

I boxed at university, competed successfully


you get the usual it's for the young, you have to be supremely fit and conditioned to box, train every day etc, no that if you are competing at a high level, otherwise you can train boxing the same way you train any martial art

Boxing isn't a martial art.


use it very successfully in a self defense situation, the irony is there are way more clips of boxers using their art in a self defense situation than wing chun

I haven't seen statistics on that and wonder how you would make such an assessment? Assuming for a moment that it is true and that you didn't just make it up though, the reason might be that boxing is far more common that VT, and so more people that get attacked are likely to have experience of boxing than VT. Many physical skills and conditioning regimes can be useful in a self defence situation, from rugby to running, but that doesn't make them martial arts or a good option for anyone looking to reliably survive dangerous situations involving other people. Same goes for boxing


yet somehow think wing chun is this great equaliser but again...Where's the proof it works against anyone let alone helps you defy the aging process

If you are interested give it a try and you will see. If not then don't worry so much about it.

Now tell me about Bak Mei and why that is different from VT please?

[guy b.]

Waiting on the same from Frost's "excellent Bak Mei".

As has been said, based on his own criteria for judging MA systems, he should also reject Bak Mei.

He has dodged this because it undermines his entire argument against VT.

True, this needs answered

[LFJ]

Boxing isn't a martial art.

I think people are taking offense to this for the wrong reason.

No one is saying boxing can't be modified for street and be very effective for self-defense.

However, if it were already directly related to free fighting, it wouldn't need to be modified.

These things KPM says below indicate that he knows and agrees that modifications need to be made for boxing to be more effective and safer when applied on the street, and there are obviously many more significant and necessary modifications, some of which I described.

In this sense, it is not a martial art, but a ring sport, and not even a single approach to that. But so what? That is not to say you can't use it to knock out an attacker.


...there are some vulnerabilities in what they do if they are facing someone on the street.....

...he needs to cover better when he isn't using gloves, or be more careful in how he hits to protect his hands...

And yes, every martial art will have to work with certain vulnerabilities as well, but not for a lack of consideration of possible dangers due to the opponent being bound by ring rules. A martial art, being designed for self-defense, does not need to be modified for the street.

[KPM]

And yes, every martial art will have to work with certain vulnerabilities as well, but not for a lack of consideration of possible dangers due to the opponent being bound by ring rules. A martial art, being designed for self-defense, does not need to be modified for the street.

How about Olympic Judo or Olympic Tae Kwon Do? Are they "martial arts"?

[KPM]

There is massive variation that creates different types of fighters in the ring, meaning there is no one system of boxing.

---There is no "one" system of Wing Chun either! Does that mean it isn't a martial art?




Which means you can't say "this" and only "this" is boxing, or can't guarantee that if you go into a boxing gym they will be teaching the same method as any other gym.


---The exact same thing could be said of Wing Chun or Karate.



They are as much different systems as various karate styles.

---Does that mean Karate isn't a "martial art" either??




Which means things will have to be changed, in some ways drastically, from how it is in the boxing ring.

---Likewise, Wing Chun will need to change things for fighting on the street compared to training in the gym. That may be why lots of Wing Chun sparring clips don't look anything like Wing Chun!


Seriously? That guy is a moron.

:rolleyes:

[guy b.]

I think people are taking offense to this for the wrong reason.

No one is saying boxing can't be modified for street and be very effective for self-defense.

However, if it were already directly related to free fighting, it wouldn't need to be modified.

These things KPM says below indicate that he knows and agrees that modifications need to be made for boxing to be more effective and safer when applied on the street, and there are obviously many more significant and necessary modifications, some of which I described.

In this sense, it is not a martial art, but a ring sport, and not even a single approach to that. But so what? That is not to say you can't use it to knock out an attacker.

Absolutely. Someone trained in boxing is probably going to be in a better position in a fight than someone who trained golf, dancing or bowling. But someone regularly competing at a reasonable level in rugby or wrestling will also be in a better position than those others. None of these sports are martial arts because they don't teach particular strategies for fighting, but they are all tough physical sports involving physically overcoming another trained person according to the rules of their competition, so are most likely going to be useful in the event of a fight. Of course modification would be necessary for fighting.

In fact the book posted by Glenn a few pages back is about modifying the sport of boxing for fighting. Hard to understand the outrage on this one to be honest :confused:

[guy b.]

How about Olympic Judo or Olympic Tae Kwon Do? Are they "martial arts"?

Judo can be a martial art. It depends on the focus. Some people today do judo purely as a sport, and I think the sport and particularly the evolution of rule set in Olympic judo has done a lot of damage to the martial art of judo. Judo currently is probably 50:50 sport to martial art.

Luckily BJJ exits, which is definitely a martial art, and judo is still taught as a martial art in some places. Judo certainly has everything required to be a martial art, and if taught that way it is a truly excellent martial art and a great compliment/backup to a striking style like VT.

I don't know anything about Tae Kwon Do. What I have seen of it looks heavily crippled by its rules, possibly even more so than Olympic judo.

[guy b.]

And yes, every martial art will have to work with certain vulnerabilities as well, but not for a lack of consideration of possible dangers due to the opponent being bound by ring rules. A martial art, being designed for self-defense, does not need to be modified for the street.

People appear to be confusing competition strategies for fighting strategies, which is strange given how many times the difference has been emphasised.

OF COURSE BOXING HAS STRATEGY! *lists ring strategies*:confused:

[LFJ]

How about Olympic Judo or Olympic Tae Kwon Do? Are they "martial arts"?

Martial arts modified for sport.


There is massive variation that creates different types of fighters in the ring, meaning there is no one system of boxing.

---There is no "one" system of Wing Chun either! Does that mean it isn't a martial art?

No.

That is also not the reason for saying boxing isn't a martial art.
It's the reason for saying boxing isn't one system.


Which means you can't say "this" and only "this" is boxing, or can't guarantee that if you go into a boxing gym they will be teaching the same method as any other gym.

---The exact same thing could be said of Wing Chun or Karate.

Correct.


They are as much different systems as various karate styles.

---Does that mean Karate isn't a "martial art" either??

No. Again, you are confusing "not one thing" and "not a martial art".


Which means things will have to be changed, in some ways drastically, from how it is in the boxing ring.

---Likewise, Wing Chun will need to change things for fighting on the street compared to training in the gym.

You are now confusing training and fighting.

Boxing training is preparation for ring fighting and the ring fighting method needs modification for street application.
VT training is preparation for free fighting and the free fighting method needs no modification for street application.

[LFJ]

In fact the book posted by Glenn a few pages back is about modifying the sport of boxing for fighting. Hard to understand the outrage on this one to be honest :confused:

Ego too strong to acknowledge they took something the wrong way, or too angry/dumb to understand what has been said.

[guy b.]

There is massive variation that creates different types of fighters in the ring, meaning there is no one system of boxing.

---There is no "one" system of Wing Chun either! Does that mean it isn't a martial art?

There is only one VT, and it is a martial art (a systematised approach to fighting). Other systems may exist which call themselves wing chun, but these are not the same system as VT



The exact same thing could be said of Wing Chun or Karate

Re wing chun, see above. Re Karate, there are many different styles of Karate which are not the same in terms of beliefs and strategy for the fight, i.e. they different systems.



---Does that mean Karate isn't a "martial art" either??

Many karate styles are martial arts and many share a common history. They are not all the same martial art though.



---Likewise, Wing Chun will need to change things for fighting on the street compared to training in the gym. That may be why lots of Wing Chun sparring clips don't look anything like Wing Chun!

VT doesn't need changed for fighting because it is designed specifically for fighting. It takes a particular view of the best course of action in the fight and is not applicable in some situations (e.g. on the ground). That it has limits does not make it not a martial art. There is nothing the VT fighter needs to adapt or modify for fighting, unlike boxing.

[KPM]

Judo can be a martial art. It depends on the focus. Some people today do judo purely as a sport, and I think the sport and particularly the evolution of rule set in Olympic judo has done a lot of damage to the martial art of judo. Judo currently is probably 50:50 sport to martial art.

Luckily BJJ exits, which is definitely a martial art, and judo is still taught as a martial art in some places. Judo certainly has everything required to be a martial art, and if taught that way it is a truly excellent martial art and a great compliment/backup to a striking style like VT.

I don't know anything about Tae Kwon Do. What I have seen of it looks heavily crippled by its rules, possibly even more so than Olympic judo.

Ok. Good answer. I can agree with that.

[KPM]

People appear to be confusing competition strategies for fighting strategies, which is strange given how many times the difference has been emphasised.

OF COURSE BOXING HAS STRATEGY! *lists ring strategies*:confused:

But why do you see such a difference? Why would strategies used when squaring off in the ring differ so much or not be useful for squaring off in a back alley or parking lot? Of course, you couldn't use ALL of them. But I think some of them would certainly apply.....like using the ring (or a car or a wall or a dumpster) to limit the opponent's ability to use footwork or move well.....or throwing light jabs as you subtly angle to the side to bait the opponent into launching a committed attack that you are prepared to slip and come in from an angle....etc. At a certain level, fighting is fighting, whether in the ring or on the street. And since the majority of street fights end up as an exchange of punches, boxers do pretty well!

[KPM]

There is only one VT, and it is a martial art (a systematised approach to fighting). Other systems may exist which call themselves wing chun, but these are not the same system as VT


.

I didn't say "VT." I said "Wing Chun.

[dlcox]

There is only one VT, and it is a martial art (a systematised approach to fighting). Other systems may exist which call themselves wing chun, but these are not the same system as VT

VT doesn't need changed for fighting because it is designed specifically for fighting. It takes a particular view of the best course of action in the fight and is not applicable in some situations (e.g. on the ground). That it has limits does not make it not a martial art. There is nothing the VT fighter needs to adapt or modify for fighting, unlike boxing.

VT, is by your and LFJ's own statements a method of concept and contains no applications. This would extend to theoretical approach, as well as, physical movement. Making it little more than philosophical musing of theoretical concept. You concede that it has limitations (grappling, both ground & upright) yet state that there is nothing a VT fighter needs to adapt for fighting, unlike boxing. For starters, prior to the use of mufflers and the Queensbury rules, boxing did have "Wrassling, hurling, gouging and purring", which made it fairly complete and competent in all ranges of fighting, it wasn't always relegated to sport competition. You two have stated that VT never contained grappling or throwing, yet view it as more complete than boxing, where's the proof?

All I see out of the VT camp is Chi Sau videos. Now you two have stated time and again that Chi Sau is not a method of fighting, that is is just a drill and that no applications are being used when performing it. Yet it is still constantly used to validate any claims you make. Your views on VT are that it is a system of striking, a system of striking that hasn't been proven to be more effective than sport boxing on any platform, in fact just the opposite. The "Systematic" approach that you say VT has and boxing lacks is a baseless claim. I have yet to see anything resembling what you call VT prove itself to be superior in any manner (technique wise, strategy wise, theory wise, or power generation wise) than any martial art, sport or street based.

Theory alone has little to do with winning a fight, application of that theory in a realistic and achievable manner does. When the best evidence to your claims is a non-functional drilling exercise called Chi Sau, an exercise you claim not to be a method of fighting, where then is the real evidence that VT is systematically and theoretically more sound than anything, let alone boxing.

Boxing is time tested and has proven itself again and again. It is because of its limited techniques and a strong strategy and theory that it is able to be made realistic and effective on a world stage. Can VT make the same claim?

Now don't get me wrong, I like Wing Chun and what it has to offer. I'm simply not going to raise a glass of Jim Jones' Kool Aid and try to convince others that its the best they've ever tasted.

The way you and LFJ describe VT relegates it to little more than boxing IMO, argue that point if you like but it is moot. Your VT contains no grappling, you describe it as a method of striking which uses Chi Sau as a platform to develop the punch. It hasn't proven itself to be more effective than boxing despite this Chi Sau. Boxing doesn't need Chi Sau to work, why does VT? Seems to me that VT and boxing have much in common theoretically and strategically, with one exception, boxing has been proven to actually work.

Chi Sau is a method of hand chasing, try to argue that point. Its a method of defense that is either reactionary in nature or used offensively to impede an attack, either way it is focusing on the opponents limbs prior to attack. This is why VT fails in real time under heavy pressure. If your method is a method of striking why not develop and focus on drills that move the body away from an incoming attack and strike the target? It seems to me that boxing actually employs the strategies of simplicity, directness, & efficiency way better than VT in this aspect.

I find it silly that a method of striking uses a complicated method of Patty Cake as a platform to develop actual striking, but feel free to argue its usefulness in that aspect. Chi Sau has way more to do with grappling than it does striking, and are contradictory methodologies. VT has not proven itself on any platform to be a superior methodology to any martial art, let alone to a "Sport" like boxing. Until you can prove otherwise, you can keep your Kool Aid.

[guy b.]

VT, is by your and LFJ's own statements a method of concept and contains no applications. This would extend to theoretical approach, as well as, physical movement. Making it little more than philosophical musing of theoretical concept

Not at all


You concede that it has limitations (grappling, both ground & upright) yet state that there is nothing a VT fighter needs to adapt for fighting, unlike boxing. For starters, prior to the use of mufflers and the Queensbury rules, boxing did have "Wrassling, hurling, gouging and purring", which made it fairly complete and competent in all ranges of fighting, it wasn't always relegated to sport competition. You two have stated that VT never contained grappling or throwing, yet view it as more complete than boxing, where's the proof?

I believe we said it doesn't need adapted, whereas boxing does.


All I see out of the VT camp is Chi Sau videos. Now you two have stated time and again that Chi Sau is not a method of fighting, that is is just a drill and that no applications are being used when performing it. Yet it is still constantly used to validate any claims you make.

There are some clips that are not chi sau on this very thread. I have never used chi sau clips to make any point not related to chi sau.


Your views on VT are that it is a system of striking, a system of striking that hasn't been proven to be more effective than sport boxing on any platform, in fact just the opposite

This is not my claim. I guess it is yours?


The "Systematic" approach that you say VT has and boxing lacks is a baseless claim

Not baseless in the slightest, very happy to discuss


I have yet to see anything resembling what you call VT prove itself to be superior in any manner (technique wise, strategy wise, theory wise, or power generation wise) than any martial art, sport or street based

I guess you haven't looked?


Theory alone has little to do with winning a fight, application of that theory in a realistic and achievable manner does. When the best evidence to your claims is a non-functional drilling exercise called Chi Sau, an exercise you claim not to be a method of fighting, where then is the real evidence that VT is systematically and theoretically more sound than anything, let alone boxing

In the systematisation and theory of ving tsun maybe?


Boxing is time tested and has proven itself again and again. It is because of its limited techniques and a strong strategy and theory that it is able to be made realistic and effective on a world stage. Can VT make the same claim?

Boxing is a ruleset for competition. People training to compete under that ruleset naturally win 50% or all competitions under that rule set, while other people training to compete under the same rule set lose the other 50%


Now don't get me wrong, I like Wing Chun and what it has to offer. I'm simply not going to raise a glass of Jim Jones' Kool Aid and try to convince others that its the best they've ever tasted

Hard to see how you can hold any opinion when you have no experience of what you are describing?


The way you and LFJ describe VT relegates it to little more than boxing IMO

Then read more closely, it is very different


Your VT contains no grappling, you describe it as a method of striking which uses Chi Sau as a platform to develop the punch. It hasn't proven itself to be more effective than boxing despite this Chi Sau

More effective than boxing at doing what?


Boxing doesn't need Chi Sau to work, why does VT?

Happy to start at step 1 if you would like to find out more, please just ask rather than getting all angry


Seems to me that VT and boxing have much in common theoretically and strategically, with one exception, boxing has been proven to actually work

Work for what?


Chi Sau is a method of hand chasing, try to argue that point. Its a method of defense that is either reactionary in nature or used offensively to impede an attack, either way it is focusing on the opponents limbs prior to attack. This is why VT fails in real time under heavy pressure.

It's ok if you don't understand chi sau, just ask. Guessing just looks silly


If your method is a method of striking why not develop and focus on drills that move the body away from an incoming attack

Because this would be contrary to VT basic ideas?


It seems to me that boxing actually employs the strategies of simplicity, directness, & efficiency way better than VT in this aspect

There is no "boxing". There are 101 different stylistic interpretations which can work (and also fail) under boxing rules. Some may be better ideas than others under that rule set. If you would like to know about VT then again please just ask, don't guess.


I find it silly that a method of striking uses a complicated method of Patty Cake as a platform to develop actual striking

It is actually very simple. I think your misunderstanding comes from having no experience of VT. This is understandable


Chi Sau has way more to do with grappling than it does striking, and are contradictory methodologies

Ah ok, you don't understand chi sau. Feel free to ask, always happy to help.

[guy b.]

I didn't say "VT." I said "Wing Chun.

More than one system share the name wing chun?

[LFJ]

You concede that it has limitations (grappling, both ground & upright) yet state that there is nothing a VT fighter needs to adapt for fighting, unlike boxing.

VT is a standup striking method that in fact needs no adaptation for free fighting.
Adding something like BJJ for grappling would not change anything about the VT.


For starters, prior to the use of mufflers and the Queensbury rules, boxing did have "Wrassling, hurling, gouging and purring", which made it fairly complete and competent in all ranges of fighting, it wasn't always relegated to sport competition. You two have stated that VT never contained grappling or throwing, yet view it as more complete than boxing, where's the proof?

I never said VT is more complete, only more directly suited to free fighting.
Obviously, if we're talking about boxing with fewer ring rules, this may change somewhat.


All I see out of the VT camp is Chi Sau videos.

Other things have been posted.


Now you two have stated time and again that Chi Sau is not a method of fighting, that is is just a drill and that no applications are being used when performing it. Yet it is still constantly used to validate any claims you make.

Is it? I have not used chi-sau to validate any claim I've made.


Your views on VT are that it is a system of striking, a system of striking that hasn't been proven to be more effective than sport boxing on any platform, in fact just the opposite.

Just the opposite, based on what data?


The "Systematic" approach that you say VT has and boxing lacks is a baseless claim.

Or you have not understood the statement.


I have yet to see anything resembling what you call VT prove itself to be superior in any manner (technique wise, strategy wise, theory wise, or power generation wise) than any martial art, sport or street based.

Don't think anyone made that claim, but have you even looked? Ever had any direct experience with VT?


When the best evidence to your claims is a non-functional drilling exercise called Chi Sau, an exercise you claim not to be a method of fighting, where then is the real evidence that VT is systematically and theoretically more sound than anything, let alone boxing.

Chi-sau has never been presented as evidence of anything. And again, this claim has not been made.


Boxing is time tested and has proven itself again and again. It is because of its limited techniques and a strong strategy and theory that it is able to be made realistic and effective on a world stage. Can VT make the same claim?

Well, for one, the number of VT practitioners in the world is extremely insignificant comparing to boxing.
It is even a very small number in the greater Wing Chun world. And it is not made for sporting competition, so not to be expected.


The way you and LFJ describe VT relegates it to little more than boxing IMO, argue that point if you like but it is moot.

VT is Chinese street boxing. So?


Your VT contains no grappling, you describe it as a method of striking which uses Chi Sau as a platform to develop the punch. It hasn't proven itself to be more effective than boxing despite this Chi Sau.

Hasn't proven itself to whom? You and others who have no experience with it? Not my problem. Not VT's problem.


Boxing doesn't need Chi Sau to work, why does VT?

They function very differently.


Seems to me that VT and boxing have much in common theoretically and strategically, with one exception, boxing has been proven to actually work.

VT has been proven to work. It has proven to work for me. I frankly don't care if you believe it or not.


Chi Sau is a method of hand chasing, try to argue that point.

Depends on who does it and how.


Its a method of defense that is either reactionary in nature or used offensively to impede an attack, either way it is focusing on the opponents limbs prior to attack.

There are no opponents in chi-sau and it's not a method of attack or defense. This statement is nonsensical.


This is why VT fails in real time under heavy pressure.

Evidence of this? None, of course.

It has not always been my experience, or that of other VT practitioners I know, so our own hands have proven this false to us, and again, I don't care if you believe it. I don't particularly care to convince anyone. I don't personally train to make VT famous or please anyone else.


If your method is a method of striking why not develop and focus on drills that move the body away from an incoming attack and strike the target? It seems to me that boxing actually employs the strategies of simplicity, directness, & efficiency way better than VT in this aspect.

Moving away is not direct. Why not focus on such drills? Because VT functions differently.


I find it silly that a method of striking uses a complicated method of Patty Cake as a platform to develop actual striking, but feel free to argue its usefulness in that aspect.

I would suggest you experience it and have it explained to you in person. You cannot accurately assess something you don't understand and have not experienced.


Chi Sau has way more to do with grappling than it does striking, and are contradictory methodologies.

You are not describing VT chi-sau.


VT has not proven itself on any platform to be a superior methodology to any martial art, let alone to a "Sport" like boxing. Until you can prove otherwise, you can keep your Kool Aid.

No one is making that claim or selling anything. If not interested, don't worry about it.

[dlcox]

Wow you two will spin anything to suit your narrative. It all comes down to this, boxing needs no adaptation, to be used in its current form, from ring to street. The methods and strategy are the same. What you fail to take into consideration is that in the ring you a fighting another boxer who will be employing similar strategies and tactics, and will also be on par with you physically. The approach in the ring is a different mentality than in a street fight. How you train and drill in VT is directly comparable. The feeling out process used in boxing (while) in the ring is a comparable analogy to how VT (and its various permutations) act when drilling. There is absolutely no proof that the VT process (strategy, tactic, techniques) works seamlessly from drill to fight. Boxing on the other hand has proven that theirs does. To say that boxing isn't cohesive from ring to street is an idiotic statement. Outside of grappling, Boxing is the only art to traverse all fields of combative sport (Boxing, Kickboxing, Sanda, MMA) to prove their methodology. Ving Tsun, Wing Chun etc, cannot, have not and will not until jokers like you stop spouting theoretical superiority and put up or shut up about the glory of your dirty river boat prostitute boxing. End of story.

[GlennR]

Wow you two will spin anything to suit your narrative. It all comes down to this, boxing needs no adaptation, to be used in its current form, from ring to street. The methods and strategy are the same. What you fail to take into consideration is that in the ring you a fighting another boxer who will be employing similar strategies and tactics, and will also be on par with you physically. The approach in the ring is a different mentality than in a street fight. How you train and drill in VT is directly comparable. The feeling out process used in boxing (while) in the ring is a comparable analogy to how VT (and its various permutations) act when drilling. There is absolutely no proof that the VT process (strategy, tactic, techniques) works seamlessly from drill to fight. Boxing on the other hand has proven that theirs does. To say that boxing isn't cohesive from ring to street is an idiotic statement. Outside of grappling, Boxing is the only art to traverse all fields of combative sport (Boxing, Kickboxing, Sanda, MMA) to prove their methodology. Ving Tsun, Wing Chun etc, cannot, have not and will not until jokers like you stop spouting theoretical superiority and put up or shut up about the glory of your dirty river boat prostitute boxing. End of story.

This is absolutely bang on.

But theses two non fighting VT nerds wont get it, theyre too heavily invested in their way of thinking.

[guy b.]

It all comes down to this, boxing needs no adaptation, to be used in its current form, from ring to street. The methods and strategy are the same

Boxing needs no adaption. Ok glad you got your story straight


The approach in the ring is a different mentality than in a street fight.

Boxing does need adaption? :confused:


The feeling out process used in boxing (while) in the ring is a comparable analogy to how VT (and its various permutations) act when drilling.

You don't have a lot of experience of VT, do you?


put up or shut up about the glory of your dirty river boat prostitute boxing. End of story.

wow, lol

[guy b.]

This is absolutely bang on

On the contrary Glenn, it's so dense with error that nearly impossible to reply. Some parts almost need more than one reply per sentence due to frequency of VT ignorance combined with lack or reasoning ability. If you think this is bang on then you have problems.

[dlcox]

On the contrary Glenn, it's so dense with error that nearly impossible to reply. Some parts almost need more than one reply per sentence due to frequency of VT ignorance combined with lack or reasoning ability. If you think this is bang on then you have problems.
Please, get off your high horse. Your & LFJ 's posts are so filled with divisiveness, prejudice & dogma I'd be surprised if your myopia hasn't turned you into a Cyclops. You constantly spout off how your WSLPBVT is the most cohesive and complete method around, without a bit of proof. You two are as bad as that Hendrick clown. I've been in WC for 25 years, been around the various lineages & offshoots and been in other arts for even longer. I have yet to see any branch of WC/VT outside of a few like, Allen Orr & Phil Redmond, actually put their interpretation to the test. 95% of the WC/VT world are nothing more than theoretical warriors spouting useless theory as proof of worth. Most branches of the system fall apart under pressure because they refuse to leave their safety bubble. There is nothing special or unique about the art aside from its structural rules. It's a specialty art created to help enhance understanding of refined movement, nothing more. There are much better and simpler arts that teach realistic fighting. There's a reason why arts like boxing and wrestling have flourished on the world stage in real fighting competition, and WC/VT has not. But by all means, continue to drink the kool aid and ramble on about how it's because only very few possess the "real" VT & the rest is watered down or broken without providing any actual proof outside your unrealistic theories & unsubstantiated claims. You two clowns hide behind your self perceived superior knowledge of all things VT, but never back up your claims and dismiss any real argument as fallacy. Let's see a video of either one of you sparring so that we can all be enlightened, let's see some fight footage of you against another art. You're so keen to point out other's inadequacies and lack of understanding, how about you defend footage of yourself. I bet it won't happen for two reasons, one there isn't any footage of either of you, theory is all you have, & two you wouldn't be able to defend yourself from the ensuing criticism. You're both just trolls and fanatics.

[KPM]

Please, get off your high horse. Your & LFJ 's posts are so filled with divisiveness, prejudice & dogma I'd be surprised if your myopia hasn't turned you into a Cyclops.

Wait a minute! I thought I was the "divisive" one! ;)

[GlennR]

Please, get off your high horse. Your & LFJ 's posts are so filled with divisiveness, prejudice & dogma I'd be surprised if your myopia hasn't turned you into a Cyclops. You constantly spout off how your WSLPBVT is the most cohesive and complete method around, without a bit of proof. You two are as bad as that Hendrick clown. I've been in WC for 25 years, been around the various lineages & offshoots and been in other arts for even longer. I have yet to see any branch of WC/VT outside of a few like, Allen Orr & Phil Redmond, actually put their interpretation to the test. 95% of the WC/VT world are nothing more than theoretical warriors spouting useless theory as proof of worth. Most branches of the system fall apart under pressure because they refuse to leave their safety bubble. There is nothing special or unique about the art aside from its structural rules. It's a specialty art created to help enhance understanding of refined movement, nothing more. There are much better and simpler arts that teach realistic fighting. There's a reason why arts like boxing and wrestling have flourished on the world stage in real fighting competition, and WC/VT has not. But by all means, continue to drink the kool aid and ramble on about how it's because only very few possess the "real" VT & the rest is watered down or broken without providing any actual proof outside your unrealistic theories & unsubstantiated claims. You two clowns hide behind your self perceived superior knowledge of all things VT, but never back up your claims and dismiss any real argument as fallacy. Let's see a video of either one of you sparring so that we can all be enlightened, let's see some fight footage of you against another art. You're so keen to point out other's inadequacies and lack of understanding, how about you defend footage of yourself. I bet it won't happen for two reasons, one there isn't any footage of either of you, theory is all you have, & two you wouldn't be able to defend yourself from the ensuing criticism. You're both just trolls and fanatics.

Nicely put again, funny, i was actually thinking how much they reminded me of Hendrick.

[GlennR]

I have no experience or directly knowledge of Barry's or his students' VT.

Are you saying their VT didn't work?


Not at all, im just saying that my did.



What exactly are you asking for on a forum then?

Hey, you blokes are bagging TWC, relegating boxing to a sport only and basically, by inference, making out that VT is "the real deal".
Prove it.

[dlcox]

Not at all, im just saying that my did.



Hey, you blokes are bagging TWC, relegating boxing to a sport only and basically, by inference, making out that VT is "the real deal".
Prove it.
Won't happen, these two wankers are all about trying to prove everyone wrong with what they believe is superior knowledge of theory not actual use to back up their claims. They'll spin anything to suit their narrative. Because they have nothing else we'll have to endure 20 pages of how right they are, how everyone else is wrong, blah, blah, blah.

[LFJ]

It all comes down to this, boxing needs no adaptation, to be used in its current form, from ring to street.

Well, a typical cover defense without big gloves on either fighter and no rule against grappling is probably gonna cause you problems.
As may bobbing and weaving if you get kneed or kicked in the dome, as well as your stance and footwork if leg kicks and grappling are possible.
Not to mention some of your punching methods to avoid self-injury when bareknuckled.

These are a few things you will need to adapt to safely face a more free fighter than another boxer.
If you don't make adaptations to this approach, the risk is yours to take. Just hope your attacker is unskilled.


The methods and strategy are the same...
...The approach in the ring is a different mentality than in a street fight.

You are contradicting yourself.


The feeling out process used in boxing (while) in the ring is a comparable analogy to how VT (and its various permutations) act when drilling.

As guy said, your inexperience with VT is obvious. You are guessing here. Don't know why.


There is absolutely no proof that the VT process (strategy, tactic, techniques) works seamlessly from drill to fight.

The proof is in it's application, not in professional sports.

If you are simply unwilling or unable to examine the evidence, you are not justified in saying there is none and should probably not worry about it.


Outside of grappling, Boxing is the only art to traverse all fields of combative sport (Boxing, Kickboxing, Sanda, MMA) to prove their methodology. Ving Tsun, Wing Chun etc, cannot, have not and will not

Boxing is a combative sport. So, that is to be expected.

VT is not a combative sport. Those interested in combative sports are far more likely to train a combative sport like boxing than VT.

So, I'm not sure what your point is.

It is like saying a offroad pickup truck is useless because it hasn't proven itself on the Formula One circuit.


until jokers like you stop spouting theoretical superiority and put up or shut up about the glory of your dirty river boat prostitute boxing. End of story.

lol

[LFJ]

I've been in WC for 25 years,

Doing what?!


I have yet to see any branch of WC/VT outside of a few like, Allen Orr & Phil Redmond, actually put their interpretation to the test.

You haven't been paying much attention.


There's a reason why arts like boxing and wrestling have flourished on the world stage in real fighting competition, and WC/VT has not.

Obvious reason being the different focus.


Let's see a video of either one of you sparring so that we can all be enlightened, let's see some fight footage of you against another art. You're so keen to point out other's inadequacies and lack of understanding, how about you defend footage of yourself. I bet it won't happen for two reasons, one there isn't any footage of either of you, theory is all you have, & two you wouldn't be able to defend yourself from the ensuing criticism. You're both just trolls and fanatics.

Same could be said to the likes of you and Frost. Still waiting on the proof of his "excellent Bak Mei".
He disappeared quickly once put to the same standards of evidence and criticism he holds against VT.

You just seem angry that someone could still say VT is practical, after you've wasted 25 years on other WC.

I suggest going to try your hand at VT, or just giving it up. You'll be happier not having to worry about what others do.

[LFJ]

Not at all, im just saying that my did.

So then, you're saying their VT did work. I mean, either it did or it didn't.


Hey, you blokes are bagging TWC, relegating boxing to a sport only and basically, by inference, making out that VT is "the real deal".
Prove it.

Don't know what you mean by "the real deal". It works for me. Many other things work, too, including boxing styles though with obvious adaptations necessary for street application. It's no less "the real deal", whatever that is.

You're still asking on a forum for proof that VT works, but want something other than words or video?

You have just told me the VT of the guys you visited didn't at all not work... so? It sounds like you've seen your proof.

I don't know anything about their VT, though. If you're just being diplomatic and they actually sucked, I would suggest if possible that you go to a good school in Europe. That is the home of VT today. If you are unable, then best to just forget about it.

[KPM]

The proof is in it's application, not in professional sports.



Uh....hold on here! I thought WSLVT didn't do any "applications"!!!!! :eek::confused:

[LFJ]

Uh....hold on here! I thought WSLVT didn't do any "applications"!!!!! :eek::confused:

Correct. Putting VT to use, i.e. fighting, is not doing "applications".

[KPM]

Correct. Putting VT to use, i.e. fighting, is not doing "applications".

Then you really need to use a different word. We had a whole argumentative thread about this and it really just comes down to how YOU choose to define the word when it suits you best!

[LFJ]

Then you really need to use a different word. We had a whole argumentative thread about this and it really just comes down to how YOU choose to define the word when it suits you best!

Whatever. The meaning of a word is in its usage, and it's clear what I mean.

[dlcox]

Well, a typical cover defense without big gloves on either fighter and no rule against grappling is probably gonna cause you problems.
As may bobbing and weaving if you get kneed or kicked in the dome, as well as your stance and footwork if leg kicks and grappling are possible.
Not to mention some of your punching methods to avoid self-injury when bareknuckled.

This is a double standard, boxing can be learned without the gloves and the exact same issues will be present if the person is doing Wing Chun, or any other art. Its not an issue applicable only to boxing. Your reasoning is a cop out.


These are a few things you will need to adapt to safely face a more free fighter than another boxer.
If you don't make adaptations to this approach, the risk is yours to take. Just hope your attacker is unskilled.

Again, same issues are present for a practitioner of VT or any other art.



You are contradicting yourself.

No I'm not, does VT go all out when drilling, sparring or training new techniques versus actual fighting? The mentality of training, sparring and competition is way different than fighting to save your life. You telling me that VT practitioners always act or train as if their lives depended on it?



As guy said, your inexperience with VT is obvious. You are guessing here. Don't know why.

Please, quit acting as if VT is so vastly different from other versions of Wing Chun that it is to be classified by itself, same sh!t, different packaging.




The proof is in it's application, not in professional sports.

Seems to me that the application only works on other compliant VT practitioners. MMA is the closest thing there is to a legal street fight, I've seen a multitude of styles try their luck, very few have survived the test, boxing has, and without big gloves and broken hands.



If you are simply unwilling or unable to examine the evidence, you are not justified in saying there is none and should probably not worry about it.

I would be glad to examine the evidence, just haven't seen any that actually qualifies as evidence. Seen plenty of people playing patty cake, dominating non-resisting participants and demoing. Where is any actual FIGHT footage to support the claims?



Boxing is a combative sport. So, that is to be expected.

Boxing is a martial art that has a dedicated platform to field test its effectiveness. Does VT?



VT is not a combative sport. Those interested in combative sports are far more likely to train a combative sport like boxing than VT.

So this is your way of saying that VT is essentially untested and unproven under spontaneous conditions and heavy pressure? Or, are you saying it's too deadly for competition?


So, I'm not sure what your point is. It is like saying a offroad pickup truck is useless because it hasn't proven itself on the Formula One circuit.

No I'm saying its fraudulent to claim a pickup is built for offroad when it is never taken offroad and tested.

[guy b.]

Uh....hold on here! I thought WSLVT didn't do any "applications"!!!!! :eek::confused:

KPM, this is just dumb. Don't be dumb

[guy b.]

I've been in WC for 25 years, been around the various lineages & offshoots and been in other arts for even longer. I have yet to see any branch of WC/VT outside of a few like, Allen Orr & Phil Redmond, actually put their interpretation to the test.

I guess you mean you have been watching wing chun on the internet for 25 years, and trolling wing chun forums? That doesn't really count, you have to actually try it you know. It is pretty obvious that you don't know anything about the system.


There's a reason why arts like boxing and wrestling have flourished on the world stage in real fighting competition, and WC/VT has not.

Shocking that people training for particular combat sports do well in said combat sports. Unexpected and shocking


continue to ramble on about how it's because only very few possess the "real" VT & the rest is watered down or broken without providing any actual proof outside your unrealistic theories

Discussion of the ideas of VT is a simple way to show inconsistency in the ideas of VT. On a forum it is the only way.


You two clowns hide behind your self perceived superior knowledge of all things VT, but never back up your claims and dismiss any real argument as fallacy

This is a fallacy


Let's see a video of either one of you sparring so that we can all be enlightened, let's see some fight footage of you against another art. You're so keen to point out other's inadequacies and lack of understanding, how about you defend footage of yourself. I bet it won't happen

Lol, Frost?

[guy b.]

This is a double standard, boxing can be learned without the gloves and the exact same issues will be present if the person is doing Wing Chun, or any other art. Its not an issue applicable only to boxing

Sorry, this is just nonsense. None of the particular issues with boxing listed by LFJ are present in VT.


Again, same issues are present for a practitioner of VT or any other art

VT doesn't need adaption for fighting, it is designed for fighting, taking a particular strategy for the fight


No I'm not, does VT go all out when drilling, sparring or training new techniques versus actual fighting? The mentality of training, sparring and competition is way different than fighting to save your life. You telling me that VT practitioners always act or train as if their lives depended on it?

You are contradicting yourself because you said that boxing doesn't need adapted for fighting, before listing some ways that boxing needs adapted for fighting. This is the contradiction, nothing to do with VT. Just a mistake of logical thinking by yourself.

But again you make a rather funny example of how you have no clue about the VT training methodology. Why not stop lying about your experience and just be honest?


Please, quit acting as if VT is so vastly different from other versions of Wing Chun that it is to be classified by itself, same sh!t, different packaging

While VT is indeed very different to some other wing chun that I have seen, it is fairly obvious that you don't know anything about ANY wing chun at all. You are just guessing after watching some clips on the internet.


Seems to me that the application only works on other compliant VT practitioners

How can it seem anything to you without first experiencing it? Lol


I would be glad to examine the evidence, just haven't seen any that actually qualifies as evidence

Off you go then. Report back.


Boxing is a martial art that has a dedicated platform to field test its effectiveness

Boxing is a rule set. People train in different ways with different beliefs and understandings and compete under that rule set. It is in no way systematised and so in no way a martial art.


No I'm saying its fraudulent to claim a pickup is built for offroad when it is never taken offroad and tested

Again you only show your lack of understanding of the VT learning process.

[dlcox]

I guess you mean you have been watching wing chun on the internet for 25 years, and trolling wing chun forums? That doesn't really count, you have to actually try it you know. It is pretty obvious that you don't know anything about the system.

I know plenty about the system, just haven't guzzled down the kool aid.




Shocking that people training for particular combat sports do well in said combat sports. Unexpected and shocking

Shocking that people who train in a method they claim is for fighting, yet don't actually fight.



Discussion of the ideas of VT is a simple way to show inconsistency in the ideas of VT. On a forum it is the only way.

Hard to discuss anything with a fanatic




This is a fallacy

No it isn't.




Lol, Frost?

Sorry to disappoint, but no, I'm not Frost, are you Hendrick?

[dlcox]

Sorry, this is just nonsense. None of the particular issues with boxing listed by LFJ are present in VT.

Prove it then. Cause right now you are only expressing your opinion.




VT doesn't need adaption for fighting, it is designed for fighting, taking a particular strategy for the fight

No it needs a complete revamping, but by all means go on believing in your delusions, I could care less.




You are contradicting yourself because you said that boxing doesn't need adapted for fighting, before listing some ways that boxing needs adapted for fighting. This is the contradiction, nothing to do with VT. Just a mistake of logical thinking by yourself.

Mindset towards a situation isn't strategy, its something that affects or determines strategy and tactic. Boxing has more than one approach.


But again you make a rather funny example of how you have no clue about the VT training methodology. Why not stop lying about your experience and just be honest?

I could care less about your belief that VT training methodology is something vastly different to every other branch of Wing Chun. It isn't, you only try to make it out to be so to set your cult apart from everyone else. Same sh!t, different diaper.




While VT is indeed very different to some other wing chun that I have seen, it is fairly obvious that you don't know anything about ANY wing chun at all. You are just guessing after watching some clips on the internet.

Now your just trolling in a poor attempt to get my goat, because you cant actually prove any of your claims.




How can it seem anything to you without first experiencing it? Lol

Who's to say I haven't, I never made that remark. You only assume that because on not on board with your belief that VT (WSL or PB) is the be all end all, perfect system of Wing Chun.




Off you go then. Report back.

Reporting now, still didn't find anything cause it doesn't exist.




Boxing is a rule set. People train in different ways with different beliefs and understandings and compete under that rule set. It is in no way systematised and so in no way a martial art.

This is a rich statement, VT has some of the most strict rule sets of any martial art, so much so that its rendered it nearly useless outside of itself. Why is it that every branch that actually free fights with Wing Chun against other styles has modified it to a point to where it is nearly unrecognizable as what many would consider Wing Chun? Let me guess, you're going to go on about how they never learned the real stuff and filled deficiencies in with other methods.




Again you only show your lack of understanding of the VT learning process.

Think what you want. I think you don't understand what the real purpose of Wing Chun actually is.

[dlcox]

KPM, this is just dumb. Don't be dumb

I really like how you two make ambiguous remarks so that you leave yourselves an opportunity to recant and change meaning to suit your narrative. You two really are top notch trolls, I'll give you that.

[KPM]

I really like how you two make ambiguous remarks so that you leave yourselves an opportunity to recant and change meaning to suit your narrative. You two really are top notch trolls, I'll give you that.

This seems to be the WSLVT Kuen Kit for forum sparring:

Receive what comes
Be vague when pressed
Rush in if you sense an opening
Obfuscate when unsure
Never elaborate TOO much
Resort to name-calling when necessary

[dlcox]

This seems to be the WSLVT Kuen Kit for forum sparring:

Receive what comes
Be vague when pressed
Rush in if you sense an opening
Obfuscate when unsure
Never elaborate TOO much
Resort to name-calling when necessary

Spot on, but you forgot to add hubris.

[LFJ]

This is a double standard, boxing can be learned without the gloves and the exact same issues will be present if the person is doing Wing Chun, or any other art. Its not an issue applicable only to boxing. Your reasoning is a cop out.

None of the listed issues would apply to VT because VT doesn't just cover up, doesn't bob and weave, etc..


Again, same issues are present for a practitioner of VT or any other art.

Again, VT doesn't do those things and so wouldn't need to adapt them to free fighting.


The mentality of training, sparring and competition is way different than fighting to save your life. You telling me that VT practitioners always act or train as if their lives depended on it?

VT trains to prepare for unplanned confrontation where there are no rules.
Boxing trains to prepare for planned matches in a ring with rules and a ref.

There is a list of things needing to be changed for boxing to prepare for the same thing VT is preparing for.


Please, quit acting as if VT is so vastly different from other versions of Wing Chun that it is to be classified by itself, same sh!t, different packaging.

To the profoundly ignorant, maybe!

VT and TWC, for example, are entirely different approaches to fighting and fight training.

Even where there are very superficial similarities, the interpretations and functions of those things are also entirely different. Recent discussions have made this abundantly clear.


Seems to me that the application only works on other compliant VT practitioners.

And you got this idea from watching training clips on Youtube, not from experiencing VT or trying your hand against it.


I would be glad to examine the evidence, just haven't seen any that actually qualifies as evidence. Seen plenty of people playing patty cake, dominating non-resisting participants and demoing. Where is any actual FIGHT footage to support the claims?

I'm not talking about surfing Youtube. Get off the internet and go try your hand at it.


Boxing is a martial art that has a dedicated platform to field test its effectiveness. Does VT?

Boxing is a combative sport with a platform for competition, as with all sports. VT is not a sport.


So this is your way of saying that VT is essentially untested and unproven under spontaneous conditions and heavy pressure? Or, are you saying it's too deadly for competition?

Neither. VT is tested and proven by those who train it or have the balls to show up and test it with their heavy pressure.

It has not been proven to you personally because you are neither of those guys.


No I'm saying its fraudulent to claim a pickup is built for offroad when it is never taken offroad and tested.

What you mean by "offroad" is really in sporting competition.

You are erroneously stating the "offroad" testing ground for a pickup should be the Formula 1 circuit, and fraudulently claiming pickups are useless because they haven't proven themselves on the race track.

[LFJ]

Lol, Frost?

Nah. Frost already ran for the hills.

Doesn't matter who dlcox is, he's obviously... nobody important. ;)

[Frost]

Nah. Frost already ran for the hills.

Doesn't matter who dlcox is, he's obviously... nobody important. ;)

Ran for the hills, hope just remembered I had better things to do, seriously you two train a cultish version of a martial art widely considered one of the most incomplete Chinese styles out there, which if it wasn't for a dead actor would still be a unknown style dieing off in Hong Kong, and without said actor would best be known as that silly art used in those roof top slap fests going on between kids after school during the 60's in Hong kong

Neither of our have the balls to post a clip of yourselves doing anything remotely martial, hell you wont even post were you train or with whom,not to mention the only one from wsl's lineage who were proved they could fight at all was wsl himself, a guy who ...Boxed before doing wing chun.

Oh the irony the only one who could actually prove they could fight with wing chun was a boxer...

Now if you two want to continue your mutual masterbation go for it, Christ at least Hendrick had the balls to actually put videos up,

[LFJ]

you two train a *longwinded disparaging comment*

I also have experience with other than VT, as has guy b., I believe.


the only one from wsl's lineage who were proved they could fight at all was wsl himself, a guy who ...Boxed before doing wing chun.

Oh the irony the only one who could actually prove they could fight with wing chun was a boxer...

And he abandoned boxing in favor of VT because VT is so much less effective in free fighting, huh?


at least Hendrick had the balls to actually put videos up,

It doesn't take balls to put up videos. lol

It takes balls to actually go try your hand at something instead of talking on a forum.

Still waiting for your awesome Bak Mei fighting clips, though.

[KPM]

Now if you two want to continue your mutual masterbation go for it, Christ at least Hendrick had the balls to actually put videos up,

But didn't you know Frost? Fight videos in PB-WSLVT lineage are not allowed. "Sifu sez"... and all that!

[LFJ]

But didn't you know Frost? Fight videos in PB-WSLVT lineage are not allowed. "Sifu sez"... and all that!

Cry about it.

[KPM]

Cry about it.

Just pointing out the reality. Stop talking trash about other people's Wing Chun when you can't produce anything to back up how wonderful your own Wing Chun is! Stop "crying about it" when people disagree with what you are writing when you can't produce anything to back it up.

[LFJ]

Just pointing out the reality. Stop talking trash about other people's Wing Chun when you can't produce anything to back up how wonderful your own Wing Chun is! Stop "crying about it" when people disagree with what you are writing when you can't produce anything to back it up.

I have not merely "talked trash" like the trolls in this thread. I've engaged in technical discussion, and it doesn't particularly bother me if anyone disagrees with my point of view, and no one here is "producing" anything. None even have the balls to go give VT a shot in person.

[guy b.]

Burp

Bak Mei Frost?

[dlcox]

None of the listed issues would apply to VT because VT doesn't just cover up, doesn't bob and weave, etc..

No, instead it relies on way more complex tactics that violate its own rules of simplicity, directness and efficiency.




VT trains to prepare for unplanned confrontation where there are no rules.
Boxing trains to prepare for planned matches in a ring with rules and a ref.

Yet, any public footage I've seen, the vast majority of Chunners are getting bulled over in a matter of seconds and end up in the fetal postion, because what they train is unrealistic. The same goes for most experience I have sparring with or fighting with Chunners. Very few could withstand any real pressure.


There is a list of things needing to be changed for boxing to prepare for the same thing VT is preparing for.

There is a long list of realism that VT needs to prepare for in order to actually work, most importantly, how to use the body to take a hit.



VT and TWC, for example, are entirely different approaches to fighting and fight training.

Even where there are very superficial similarities, the interpretations and functions of those things are also entirely different. Recent discussions have made this abundantly clear.{/QUOTE]

Minutia of terminology, interpretation of theory and arguments over whether to use Tan or Bong, hardly make them vastly different arts. Besides, TWC at least has the balls to put up fight footage to substantiate any claims, VT doesn't.


[QUOTE=LFJ;1302224]And you got this idea from watching training clips on Youtube, not from experiencing VT or trying your hand against it.

Tried it from both sides, I've nothing against the art, I find merit in it, just not in its current iterations. I've found better methods to do what suits me and my needs when it comes to actual fighting, ones that have a long history of actually being proven to work with high percentage under duress.


Boxing is a combative sport with a platform for competition, as with all sports. VT is not a sport.

That tired old argument, that it can't be used in competition because its for the street. Too many illegal and deadly techniques, blah, blah, blah. When the UFC and Vale Tudo first appeared on the US scene, there were very few rules and no weight classes. Closest thing to a street fight there was, no Wing Chun of any variation was present, did see some Tae Kwon Do, Karate and Hung Gar and Ninjutsu though. They tried, some did fairly well. Modern MMA is set up for safety of the fighters not getting their teeth completely kicked in like in the early days. The only WC/VT present now are systems that modified WC/VT to work under heavy pressure in a spontaneous environment against other skilled fighters. Right now, WC/VT is designed to fight against the unskilled in a self defense situation. It is designed for SELF DEFENSE not actual FIGHTING, big difference.



Neither. VT is tested and proven by those who train it or have the balls to show up and test it with their heavy pressure.
It has not been proven to you personally because you are neither of those guys.

This is nothing more than biased opinion, there is no evidence to support the claim beyond personal testimony. I have my own opinions about it, this is true, but not because I have never not tested it. Do I have personal proof? No, but then again I'm not here for that, I'm defending Boxing as a legitimate martial art for both ring and street, of which it has a long and verified history to it's claims. VT does not.



What you mean by "offroad" is really in sporting competition.
You are erroneously stating the "offroad" testing ground for a pickup should be the Formula 1 circuit, and fraudulently claiming pickups are useless because they haven't proven themselves on the race track.

No, what I mean is that you are making unsubstantiated claims that have no evidence to back them up. Offroad testing is just that, test it outside the presentation floor in the environment it states to be proficient in. You make claims but have zero evidence to support them beyond your personal beliefs.

[dlcox]

Ran for the hills, hope just remembered I had better things to do, seriously you two train a cultish version of a martial art widely considered one of the most incomplete Chinese styles out there, which if it wasn't for a dead actor would still be a unknown style dieing off in Hong Kong, and without said actor would best be known as that silly art used in those roof top slap fests going on between kids after school during the 60's in Hong kong

Neither of our have the balls to post a clip of yourselves doing anything remotely martial, hell you wont even post were you train or with whom,not to mention the only one from wsl's lineage who were proved they could fight at all was wsl himself, a guy who ...Boxed before doing wing chun.

Oh the irony the only one who could actually prove they could fight with wing chun was a boxer...

Now if you two want to continue your mutual masterbation go for it, Christ at least Hendrick had the balls to actually put videos up,

Lol, hits the nail right on the head.

[LFJ]

No, instead it relies on way more complex tactics that violate its own rules of simplicity, directness and efficiency.

Such as?


Yet, any public footage I've seen, the vast majority of Chunners are getting bulled over in a matter of seconds and end up in the fetal postion, because what they train is unrealistic. The same goes for most experience I have sparring with or fighting with Chunners. Very few could withstand any real pressure.

I don't doubt that. Most Wing Chun is indeed useless.


There is a long list of realism that VT needs to prepare for in order to actually work, most importantly, how to use the body to take a hit.

And the face? Hi, Nobody Important.


Minutia of terminology, interpretation of theory and arguments over whether to use Tan or Bong, hardly make them vastly different arts.

Interpretation of theory doesn't matter, huh? That's what forms the entire basis of a fighting system, and it is vasty different between VT and TWC.


Tried it from both sides,

That's not what you said over on MartialTalk.


That tired old argument, that it can't be used in competition because its for the street. Too many illegal and deadly techniques, blah, blah, blah.

This argument has not been made.


It is designed for SELF DEFENSE not actual FIGHTING, big difference.

"Actual fighting" means in sporting competition to you, right?

That's fine to say then. Exactly what you have been told.


This is nothing more than biased opinion, there is no evidence to support the claim beyond personal testimony.

Not biased and not opinion. It either has worked for people or it hasn't.

If you want evidence, you will have to get off the internet and go to it.


I'm defending Boxing as a legitimate martial art for both ring and street,

No one has said it is not "legitimate", provided it is properly adapted from ring to street.


No, what I mean is that you are making unsubstantiated claims that have no evidence to back them up. Offroad testing is just that, test it outside the presentation floor in the environment it states to be proficient in. You make claims but have zero evidence to support them beyond your personal beliefs.

You have refused to examine the evidence, is all. Why are you afraid to go try your hand?

[dlcox]

I have not merely "talked trash" like the trolls in this thread. I've engaged in technical discussion, and it doesn't particularly bother me if anyone disagrees with my point of view, and no one here is "producing" anything. None even have the balls to go give VT a shot in person.

Who says no one here hasn't tried VT? I have, didn't see much of a difference TBH. It wasn't any better or worse than any other branch, its just specialized and I didn't care for that. If I am force to choose between two systems of striking, VT or Boxing, I'm going with boxing, because it is a superior striking art in my opinion.

I think what you're really implying is that no one has tried your specific and exclusive branch of VT. What makes you think yours is so much better? What makes you believe that what you have is so vastly superior to everyone else's?

Your branch contains no grappling, mine does, and its theory is consistent with a method that incorporates grappling. Why would I chose to give up something I know works for my purposes? To give it all up and follow a system (that I've actually tried), a system that contradicts my beliefs and understanding of what the art was actually meant for, and limits my ability to do what I am naturally inclined to do. My Wing Chun is a great transition/bridge from Boxing to Grappling, that is what I use it for. VT (WSLVT or PBVT) cannot offer this.

Understandably, there isn't a system that is going to appeal to everyone, let alone a branch of Wing Chun that is going to appeal to everyone. There is no singular method of WC/VT that addresses all the issues that arise when it comes to self preservation. People will choose what best suits their interests and needs. The argument here isn't about those issues, its about your insinuations that VT is superior to boxing based upon your opinion and personal belief. You have presented no evidence and are unwilling to do so. Until you do, there is nothing to discuss.

[LFJ]

Who says no one here hasn't tried VT? I have, didn't see much of a difference TBH. It wasn't any better or worse than any other branch, its just specialized and I didn't care for that.

You yourself, on MartialTalk, unless you have been to a VT school in the last couple months. Which one did you visit?


I think what you're really implying is that no one has tried your specific and exclusive branch of VT. What makes you think yours is so much better? What makes you believe that what you have is so vastly superior to everyone else's?

I haven't made this claim.


Your branch contains no grappling, mine does, and its theory is consistent with a method that incorporates grappling. Why would I chose to give up something I know works for my purposes? To give it all up and follow a system (that I've actually tried), a system that contradicts my beliefs and understanding of what the art was actually meant for, and limits my ability to do what I am naturally inclined to do. My Wing Chun is a great transition/bridge from Boxing to Grappling, that is what I use it for. VT (WSLVT or PBVT) cannot offer this.

No one has asked you to switch.


The argument here isn't about those issues, its about your insinuations that VT is superior to boxing based upon your opinion and personal belief. You have presented no evidence and are unwilling to do so. Until you do, there is nothing to discuss.

When the hell did I "insinuate" that?

[dlcox]

Such as?



I don't doubt that. Most Wing Chun is indeed useless.



And the face? Hi, Nobody Important.



Interpretation of theory doesn't matter, huh? That's what forms the entire basis of a fighting system, and it is vasty different between VT and TWC.



That's not what you said over on MartialTalk.



This argument has not been made.



"Actual fighting" means in sporting competition to you, right?

That's fine to say then. Exactly what you have been told.



Not biased and not opinion. It either has worked for people or it hasn't.

If you want evidence, you will have to get off the internet and go to it.



No one has said it is not "legitimate", provided it is properly adapted from ring to street.



You have refused to examine the evidence, is all. Why are you afraid to go try your hand?

Blah, Blah, Blah.... Anymore when you post something all I hear is Charlie Brown's teacher. Quit deflecting and trying to spin everything. Direct questions have been put to you and you still haven't answered. There is no evidence, I'm not drinking your Kool Aid until I know what is in it.

[LFJ]

Direct questions have been put to you and you still haven't answered. There is no evidence, I'm not drinking your Kool Aid until I know what is in it.

I've answered everything. The evidence is there for you to examine. You are apparently afraid to do so.

I'm not asking you or anyone to switch. I don't care what you do.

[guy b.]

And the face? Hi, Nobody Important

and also the same guy as Saul Goodman. interesting

[guy b.]

Who says no one here hasn't tried VT? I have, didn't see much of a difference TBH. It wasn't any better or worse than any other branch, its just specialized and I didn't care for that

You say it by your lack of knowledge (also you actually say it)

[dlcox]

You yourself, on MartialTalk, unless you have been to a VT school in the last couple months. Which one did you visit?

Not important, what's important is that I did. They were good people and I'm not going to slander them or allow you to do so to further your agenda.



No one has asked you to switch.

What are you asking then? I tried it, not my cup of tea. Don't see in it the claims you make or how it is so vastly different from other branches I've tried. I like the branch I settled in, for me it measures up, for others it might not. No big deal.

I personally think that a large part of the problem that plagues the Wing Chun world is that the majority of its practitioners spend too much time pontificating theory and convincing themselves that superior theoretical knowledge will propel them to victory should they ever have to defend themselves. They think they know it all until they take a hit on the chin, then it all goes out the window. That isn't an art issue, its a teacher one.



When the hell did I "insinuate" that?

With nearly every new conversation over the last few years. You constantly deride others and insult their lineages while building yours up. Why else do you think you are met with such resistance?

[dlcox]

I've answered everything. The evidence is there for you to examine. You are apparently afraid to do so.

I'm not asking you or anyone to switch. I don't care what you do.

You have provided no evidence period.

[LFJ]

and also the same guy as Saul Goodman. interesting

Right, a well-known fictional character name for his obvious troll account.

10285

[dlcox]

and also the same guy as Saul Goodman. interesting

Don't know who that is, but it isn't me. I freely admit that I use the screen name Nobody Important over at MT. Unlike you I don't use multiple names to troll internet forums. I've had this account for many years.

[LFJ]

Not important, what's important is that I did. They were good people and I'm not going to slander them or allow you to do so to further your agenda.

Obvious lie to further your troll agenda. You have clearly had no input from anyone.


What are you asking then? I tried it, not my cup of tea. Don't see in it the claims you make or how it is so vastly different from other branches I've tried. I like the branch I settled in, for me it measures up, for others it might not. No big deal.

I'm not asking anything. I might ask that you stop lying, though.


With nearly every new conversation over the last few years. You constantly deride others and insult their lineages while building yours up. Why else do you think you are met with such resistance?

I have never once said anything close to VT being superior to boxing. That is a complete lie, Mr. Goodman.

I also don't just insult lineages. I engage in technical discussion. Often the result is that flaws I notice are highlighted, and people take that as an insult because they don't like to have flaws pointed out to them, as if they care more about being right that being practical, which I find strange.

[KPM]

With nearly every new conversation over the last few years. You constantly deride others and insult their lineages while building yours up. Why else do you think you are met with such resistance?

Now this is exactly right! Spin it, try to deny it, obfuscate, make excuses.....it doesn't matter. The comment is above is very true!!! This applies to LFJ and Guy B. most recently, but certainly also applied to Graham, Kevin G. and others here in the past.

[dlcox]

Right, a well-known fictional character name for his obvious troll account.

10285

Keep mudslinging, you're only proving my point and what others think about you. You're a typical left wing liberal who thinks that they are intellectually superior and when put to the fire start crying, acting out, name calling, spinning, etc. Nothing more than diversion tactics to reroute conversations away from topics you don't want to discuss for fear of being caught telling a lie that advances your narrative.

You two are notorious internet trolls, who have no intentions of clarifying any statements you make. I'm done enabling you, and don't expect me to be cordial over here, I only was on MT because I had to be, because every time you two got called out you reported me to the admin.

[KPM]

I also don't just insult lineages. I engage in technical discussion. .

:eek: You said that TWC was "application based" and therefore could be "learned in minutes." You don't see that as an insult??? You have referred to other systems as "broken" multiple times in the past. You don't see that as an insult??? Dude, get real! :rolleyes:

[dlcox]

Obvious lie to further your troll agenda. You have clearly had no input from anyone.



I'm not asking anything. I might ask that you stop lying, though.



I have never once said anything close to VT being superior to boxing. That is a complete lie, Mr. Goodman.

I also don't just insult lineages. I engage in technical discussion. Often the result is that flaws I notice are highlighted, and people take that as an insult because they don't like to have flaws pointed out to them, as if they care more about being right that being practical, which I find strange.

You getting dizzy yet?

[LFJ]

I freely admit that I use the screen name Nobody Important over at MT. Unlike you I don't use multiple names to troll internet forums. I've had this account for many years.

Yet, your initial post here was pretending to be an unbiased lurker who hadn't been around for years and just couldn't help calling me out, when we actually last talked a couple months ago on MT where you said you had never trained VT. Now suddenly you know all about it (but still don't).


Haven't posted on here in years, but after reading this, felt the urge to.

[LFJ]

Keep mudslinging, you're only proving my point and what others think about you. You're a typical left wing liberal who thinks that they are intellectually superior and when put to the fire start crying, acting out, name calling, spinning, etc. Nothing more than diversion tactics to reroute conversations away from topics you don't want to discuss for fear of being caught telling a lie that advances your narrative.

lol! Wrong on every account, buddy!


You said that TWC was "application based" and therefore could be "learned in minutes."

Yes.


You don't see that as an insult???

No.


You have referred to other systems as "broken" multiple times in the past.

Yes.


You don't see that as an insult???

No, but I can see why it's hard to hear.

[dlcox]

Yet, your initial post here was pretending to be an unbiased lurker who hadn't been around for years and just couldn't help calling me out, when we actually last talked a couple months ago on MT where you said you had never trained VT. Now suddenly you know all about it (but still don't).

Haven't posted on here in years, you knew exactly who I was, so quit pretending you didn't. Yes, I tried a branch of WSLVT, wasn't for me, doesn't mean I think it broken. Thought you'd be happy someone took your advice, or you just mad because I didn't convert. They failed to convince me that it was any better than what I already had. No big deal to me.

[LFJ]

Haven't posted on here in years, you knew exactly who I was, so quit pretending you didn't. Yes, I tried a branch of WSLVT, wasn't for me, doesn't mean I think it broken. Thought you'd be happy someone took your advice, or you just mad because I didn't convert. They failed to convince me that it was any better than what I already had. No big deal to me.

I actually didn't make the connection until your common troll tactics came out.

I also do not believe you because your description of VT is that of someone who has no idea what it is.

Not all WSLVT schools are created equally, though, and you won't say whether or not it was one that I'd agree with. But your still utter cluelessness says enough.

[dlcox]

I actually didn't make the connection until your common troll tactics came out.

I also do not believe you because your description of VT is that of someone who has no idea what it is.

Not all WSLVT schools are created equally, though, and you won't say whether or not it was one that I'd agree with. But your still utter cluelessness says enough.

Whatever, I've all but come out & said who I was on MT.

Not everyone shares your opinion of WSLVT, deal with it.

Exactly, why does it have to be a school YOU agree with? Is it because if they don't have the exact same beliefs as you, then it isn't real WSLVT?

The only cluelessness is on your part. If you want your VT to be an individually recognized art separate of the wider Wing Chun world, call it something different. As I see it, your branch is a minority that doesn't associate your method with any other of the various branches. You say it is unto itself, ergo, not the same. So why call it by a name that causes confusion and controversy if it isn't but a specialized offshoot based on Wing Chun?

Regardless of what you may believe, Yip Man did not invent Wing Chun, nor was he the only one to learn the real or original "legitimate" method. Its just an interpretation, no better or worse than any other IMO. Feel free to believe and promote otherwise. There is absolutely no evidence to support a claim to the contrary, it all comes down to the practitioner and whether or not you can actually use it. If you can or not, I don't care. What I do take notice in is loud mouth braggerts that make audacious claims and refuse to provide emperical evidence that supports those claims.

We can go round & round bickering back & forth to no end. I'd rather not, I've more important things to do than debate with trolls on an internet forum, you live for this, I don't. So until you provide some actual fight footage to back up your self imposed technical superiority, we have nothing further to discuss.

Go back to trolling Kieth, he doesn't seem to mind bickering with you.

[Happy Tiger]

Whatever, I've all but come out & said who I was on MT.

Not everyone shares your opinion of WSLVT, deal with it.

Exactly, why does it have to be a school YOU agree with? Is it because if they don't have the exact same beliefs as you, then it isn't real WSLVT?

The only cluelessness is on your part. If you want your VT to be an individually recognized art separate of the wider Wing Chun world, call it something different. As I see it, your branch is a minority that doesn't associate your method with any other of the various branches. You say it is unto itself, ergo, not the same. So why call it by a name that causes confusion and controversy if it isn't but a specialized offshoot based on Wing Chun?
Any clue Ness I shown by a lack of combat experience.
Regardless of what you may believe, Yip Man did not invent Wing Chun, nor was he the only one to learn the real or original "legitimate" method. Its just an interpretation, no better or worse than any other IMO. Feel free to believe and promote otherwise. There is absolutely no evidence to support a claim to the contrary, it all comes down to the practitioner and whether or not you can actually use it. If you can or not, I don't care. What I do take notice in is loud mouth braggerts that make audacious claims and refuse to provide emperical evidence that supports those claims.

We can go round & round bickering back & forth to no end. I'd rather not, I've more important things to do than debate with trolls on an internet forum, you live for this, I don't. So until you provide some actual fight footage to back up your self imposed technical superiority, we have nothing further to discuss.

Go back to trolling Kieth, he doesn't seem to mind bickering with you.
Ok. Bottom line, if 'traning don't include fighting than that is were we go back to form by . You are all Fighters​....Go out and fight
I

[KPM]

Exactly, why does it have to be a school YOU agree with? Is it because if they don't have the exact same beliefs as you, then it isn't real WSLVT?

---Well of course! So far the list of "disapproved" WSLVT is growing. It seems to include David Peterson, Gary Lam, Wang Xi Peng, and Jerry Yeung. Probably others that I am forgetting. I'm sure whoever you checked out would be on the list as well, especially if they were in the US. The only "approved" US instructor is likely Kevin Gledhill.

[zuti car]

Boxing as a legitimate martial art for both ring and street, of which it has a long and verified history to it's claims. VT does not.


.

Absolitly true

[LFJ]

Whatever, I've all but come out & said who I was on MT.

Only after you were caught.

You were originally trying to pass yourself off as another unbiased person speaking out against my point of view, but really you're just the same old troll.


Not everyone shares your opinion of WSLVT, deal with it.

Exactly, why does it have to be a school YOU agree with? Is it because if they don't have the exact same beliefs as you, then it isn't real WSLVT?

Because we're discussing my views on VT.

It would only make sense that you visit a school that shares my views.


As I see it, your branch is a minority that doesn't associate your method with any other of the various branches.

For reasons well-explained.


So why call it by a name that causes confusion and controversy if it isn't but a specialized offshoot based on Wing Chun?

It's not "specialized" and not an offshoot.


Regardless of what you may believe, Yip Man did not invent Wing Chun, nor was he the only one to learn the real or original "legitimate" method.

We've had long discussions before where I argued against this exact point, and you know this.


refuse to provide emperical evidence that supports those claims.

Not my fault that you refuse to examine the evidence.


We can go round & round bickering back & forth to no end. I'd rather not, I've more important things to do than debate with trolls on an internet forum, you live for this, I don't.

Then why come start trolling this thread?


So until you provide some actual fight footage to back up your self imposed technical superiority, we have nothing further to discuss.

Because you don't have the balls to get off the internet and go test it yourself.

[LFJ]

So far the list of "disapproved" WSLVT is growing. It seems to include David Peterson, Gary Lam, Wang Xi Peng, and Jerry Yeung. Probably others that I am forgetting.

This same lie again!

I don't disapprove of GL and WZP. They openly train things a bit or a lot differently, is all.

DP and JY are essentially the same, and yeah, I don't share their views on VT.

If you want to experience the VT I'm talking about, it just makes sense to visit people I agree with.


I'm sure whoever you checked out would be on the list as well, especially if they were in the US.

Quite clear he didn't check anyone out. He is even more clueless than you.

If he or anyone else would actually like to, just let me know where about in the world you are, which continent and country, and I'll let you know where I think the closest VT is to you.

But in general, I can tell you now, the area with the greatest density of quality VT is going to be in Central Europe.

[KPM]

I don't disapprove of GL and WZP. They openly train things a bit or a lot differently, is all.

---The same lie again!



If you want to experience the VT I'm talking about, it just makes sense to visit people I agree with.

---Which would be PB lineage people, as pointed out on the other thread.




If he or anyone else would actually like to, just let me know where about in the world you are, which continent and country, and I'll let you know where I think the closest VT is to you. But in general, I can tell you now, the area with the greatest density of quality VT is going to be in Central Europe.

---Now see, there it is again. You know that "Ving Tsun" is a generic term and just another version of the word "Wing Chun." Yet you use it to refer to YOUR version of WSLVT, as if it is the only legitimate version of Ving Tsun/Wing Chun. That is where your air of superiority and underlying insulting attitude towards others shows through. And you don't even get it, do you??? :rolleyes:

[LFJ]

I don't disapprove of GL and WZP. They openly train things a bit or a lot differently, is all.

---The same lie again!

Every time you tell this lie, I will always say I do not "disapprove" or however you word it.

I repeat for the billionth time, there is absolutely nothing wrong with changes made openly.


If you want to experience the VT I'm talking about, it just makes sense to visit people I agree with.

---Which would be PB lineage people, as pointed out on the other thread.

To name one.


You know that "Ving Tsun" is a generic term and just another version of the word "Wing Chun." Yet you use it to refer to YOUR version of WSLVT, as if it is the only legitimate version of Ving Tsun/Wing Chun. That is where your air of superiority and underlying insulting attitude towards others shows through. And you don't even get it, do you??? :rolleyes:

You are just being dense. You know exactly what I refer to when I say VT.
I don't need to spell it out to you in every post.

You are going out of your way to read into and take offense to two letters.

[KPM]

You are just being dense. You know exactly what I refer to when I say VT.
I don't need to spell it out to you in every post.

You are going out of your way to read into and take offense to two letters.

So it is such a great effort for you to make 3 extra keystrokes???? W...S...L...VT. I know what you are talking about. But I'm not the only one reading along in various forums where you post. Not everyone will understand that when you use the generic term "Ving Tsun" you aren't referring to Wing Chun in general, but very specifically to YOUR version of WSLVT. This has created confusion and contention in multiple threads at the MT forum in the past and this has been pointed out to you. Yet you continue to do it! Why is that? My conclusion....you don't care and you don't mind creating confusion and contention. In fact, your goal is creating contention because you enjoy arguing in the various forums.

[LFJ]

This has created confusion and contention in multiple threads at the MT forum in the past

For you.


and this has been pointed out to you.

By you.

It is clear in the context of every thread.
Where it has not been, I have made it clear.

[KPM]

It is clear in the context of every thread.
Where it has not been, I have made it clear.

Another lie. But Ok. Go on believing whatever you want. I'm done arguing with a brick wall. But you just keep on arguing! You enjoy it so much! :p

[GlennR]

But in general, I can tell you now, the area with the greatest density of quality VT is going to be in Central Europe.

Really??? And the evidence for this is??

[LFJ]

Really??? And the evidence for this is??

Number of schools.