Choy Lay Fut versus Wing Chun?

[hskwarrior]

I just see too many video's where VT people are trying to display the style, the things they do in training, which creates robots and mechanical movements. If there's no bridge contact, no one should know your a VT man

What you're talking about here is owning your gung fu. It was given to us by our teachers, yet instead of owning it people tend to try n mirror their teacher becoming a carbon copy which wouldn't allow you to express your own individuality. While training under my sifu he used to encourage us to find our own method of usage that suited us best. Not only would we know his way, we'd have our own as well.

[straightblast5]

Hi Phillip,

I teach/train WSLVT as well. My favorite quote of WSL was "Don't be a slave to the system", that tells me allot. Since hearing that and having the ability to train in his system, I've come to realize that VT is just about training, creating good habits, correcting mistakes, building structure and mechanics. The vast majority of the training is two man drills with prolonged contact, anything outside of that for me is just training timing, distancing and perception, so for me the sparring in those vids is outside of the VT training IMO.

Just so you know, I wasn't knocking the VT guys performance, he had great punches, structure, was fast and powerful, it is just the timing of it all, but if that was something specific being worked on then I can see your points.

To me it's all about being natural, the training has to effect your natural responses, make things tighter, more accurate and powerful. I just see too many video's where VT people are trying to display the style, the things they do in training, which creates robots and mechanical movements. If there's no bridge contact, no one should know your a VT man

James

Greeting James,

You list very valid points.

“Don’t be a slave to the system”, that's one of my favorite quotes as well. Sifu tends to use a particular anecdote regarding one of his challenge matches to help illustrate this idea. His recollection tells that, immediately after the fight, his kung fu brothers berated him for knocking out his opponent with a knee instead of a “proper” Ving Tsun kick. But seemingly unnoticed by his misinformed kung fu brethren, his knee (though not specifically in the curriculum) did follow the VT concept of closest weapon (knee) to the closest target, and most importantly, Sifu won the fight. That's why I try not to accept any idea at face-value and, when possible, I rely on my own practical experiences with VT to illustrate to me that what I’m being taught works for me as well.

While the aforementioned anecdote tells us particular techniques are interchangeable given the situation, certain universal principles remain the same (like closest weapon to closest target). When Sifu explained attacking when you’re "one-step away" (or within striking range) from your opponent, he is describing an entry strategy that he found to work for him (from his personal experiences) while using a very similar Ving Tsun structure that we (of the WSL lineage) use today. If we’re using the structure and concepts that he had passed on to us, this type of entry strategy should probably work for us also. The rhythm it takes to make this entry (that Sifu had proposed) successful takes time to develop (just as the gap-closing strategy from boxing that you advocated in your previous post would also take time to develop successfully), but when it does, I find the method proposed by my Sifu to work for me more often than not. I prefer to close the gap with a standard VT front kick/step as it brings me closer to the opponent with an attack (as the kick is not a passive bridging method) and when it brings me into my prefered range, the nature of the kick puts me in proper VT structure immediately (as my kicking foot either makes contact or steps back onto the ground). Ultimately the method of entry depends on the practitioner’s preference and experience.

I agree with you that being natural is important, and that forcing a technique (just for the sake that it’s ‘Ving Tsun’) when there’s a better way to solve the given problem is counter-productive. With that said, I am still convinced that the Ving Tsun system contains very particular structures, shapes, and strategies that have been developed to best express the concepts and principles within the VT method. I absolutely agree with you that (when genuinely understood) VT principles and practices will definitely make any person “tighter, more accurate, and powerful”, so if I can find an honestly useable strategy within the VT system that I practice to solve a particular problem, I don’t find it necessary to adapt a strategy (from another methodology) while fighting, sparring, and training with VT.

Aside from a few differences in opinion, I feel we share many of the same attitudes towards combat and training VT (as listed in my inital post). Thank you for your positive input and good luck with your training.

Regards,
Philip

[straightblast5]

Good post. Say what I say almost verbatim. Your training reminds me of training "back in the day". Good stuff.
I believe that the individual practitioner makes the fight. But I will say that a good CLF fighter will give the average WC fighter a really hard time. The VT/WC charging in chain punches can be taken advantage of by CLF.

Thank you for your kind words in response to my post.

Regards,
Philip

[Phil Redmond]

. . .I just see too many video's where VT people are trying to display the style, the things they do in training, which creates robots and mechanical movements. If there's no bridge contact, no one should know your a VT man

James

So true James. What happens though is when people see clips of our guys fighting there have the "where is the WC? "mindset. They are expecting to see picture perfect, choreographed, kung fu movie, WC techs against a resisting opponent. People who've competed know better. Those who haven't don't.

[Phil Redmond]

Philip Ng

Not that you'd really care but I must say that schools like yours make me proud to be a TCMA. We are looked down upon by many other MAs. Keep up the good work.
Also, you have a great name. Even though you spell it wrong.
Phillip

[YouKnowWho]

The VT/WC charging in chain punches can be taken advantage of by CLF.

Any "straight jab" can be countered by "hook punch" and that's just the general "circular against straight line" principle which may not have anything to do with styles. This is also the Kempo guy's favor move. They like to drop their leading arm down, any incoming straight punch, they like to use "ridge hand (similiar to hook punch)" to couner.

[sihing]

So true James. What happens though is when people see clips of our guys fighting there have the "where is the WC? "mindset. They are expecting to see picture perfect, choreographed, kung fu movie, WC techs against a resisting opponent. People who've competed know better. Those who haven't don't.

This is because allot of people are thinking in a "style" way, that the training is meant to change everything they do or how they move. It does, but not in the sense that one has to be mechanical about it. Bruce Lee said it best, "One must be unnaturally natural or naturally unnatural,,,,to be totally natural is unscientific and unefficient, to be too scientific is to move like a mechancial man, one has to find the happy medium in the middle.." (Pierre Burton interview 72').

Phillip,
The dilemma I have is not being fixed or stuck in a box. If I follow WSL advice to the book, no striking unless within one step distance, I feel stuck in a box. Yes he discovered this tactic due to his fighting experience, I think each of us has to do the same thing. It is not that it is "bad" advice, it is just that there is a time and place for everything. If for e.g. I am just outside that "one step" range, does that mean I cannot strike?? For me if I have an opening I will strike, I may break some VT rules by doing so, but if the opportunity is there, I will take it (all fighting is a gamble, whether I strike with a jab or VT punch, there's no guarantees). Now that doesn't mean that I have to learn another method of striking. I've only ever practiced one MA, Wing Chun (1st TWC, now since 06' WSLVT), but I have been a fan of boxing and can throw a decent jab, it's not that hard to do. When I throw it now, I throw it while coming in slightly, so that the VT structure is essentially kicking in behind it as the distance is narrowed. If it works, great, if not there's a backup plan already in place.
Hope you understand, not trying to say your wrong/I'm right, it's not that simple, just a different way of looking at it. For the most part we're on the same page


James

[sihing]

What you're talking about here is owning your gung fu. It was given to us by our teachers, yet instead of owning it people tend to try n mirror their teacher becoming a carbon copy which wouldn't allow you to express your own individuality. While training under my sifu he used to encourage us to find our own method of usage that suited us best. Not only would we know his way, we'd have our own as well.

This is true. No one can give you good kung fu, or VT, one must learn it themselves, thru the training curriculum, then use it themselves thru sparring and actual experience. A teacher/sifu/coach can only guide you, maybe help you complete the process faster by keeping you on track. One only learns by making mistakes, learning from them and going forward.

James

[straightblast5]

Not that you'd really care but I must say that schools like yours make me proud to be a TCMA. We are looked down upon by many other MAs. Keep up the good work.
Also, you have a great name. Even though you spell it wrong.
Phillip

Thank you, I do care and I am very flattered. It has always been my intention to promote the use of practical experience and critical reasoning to discern the efficiency of any combat method. So rather than wasting my time on researching what method is "better", I prefer to objectively discover if what I'm doing serves its intended purpose.

It is my perspective that martial arts are combat methods, not some sort of pseudo-religion where blind faith overwhelms logic. So if practitioners of other methods make uneducated claims about combat methodologies that they know very little about, they are simply limiting themselves and would be better served by spending their time making what they practice work for them.

I'm pretty certain that humans have been fighting each other (for whatever reasons) long before any established combat methodology was developed, so I feel the TMA vs. MMA argument is a misinformed one, as I feel martial artists should train in an intelligent and progressive manner regardless of what method(s) they choose to study (be it BJJ, MT, VT, CLF, etc.).

With that said, even though I feel martial arts should be practiced progressively and intelligently, the martial arts (as per its origins) are not purely an intellectual exercises as the language of combat is ultimately spoken with the hands (and feet).

Thank you for your comment and I look forward to having more discussions like this in the future.

Regards,
Philip

BTW - it seems that there is an extra "L" in your name

[straightblast5]

Hope you understand, not trying to say your wrong/I'm right, it's not that simple, just a different way of looking at it. For the most part we're on the same pageJames

I absolutely understand. Syntactic differences aside, I believe that we're pretty much saying the same thing.

regards,
Philip

[straightblast5]

Also a means of allowing us to express ourselves through physical movement.

I feel martial arts lets us look at ourselves honestly.

That's the category of "more" than raw fighting potential.

Agreed, as I believe "raw fighting potential" is something innate and differs from person to person. However, a well developed fighting methodology (when practiced intelligently) can/will improve a person's "fighting ability" regardless of the level of their innate fighting potential (though of course, that innate potential still does play a significant factor).

And you’re correct, honesty is the key to self-improvement (among other virtues). As skill (of any sort) is not inherited but earned. And a good measuring stick for self-improvement is to see if the person you are today can (through diligent and intelligent training) defeat the person you were the day before.

regards,
Philip

[TenTigers]

Any "straight jab" can be countered by "hook punch" and that's just the general "circular against straight line" principle which may not have anything to do with styles. This is also the Kempo guy's favor move. They like to drop their leading arm down, any incoming straight punch, they like to use "ridge hand (similiar to hook punch)" to couner.

WC Sifu Allen Lee taught a sow choy vs a straight punch as well.
"A circle beats a straight line, and a straight line beats a circle" -this counts for hands as well as footwork, such as when you are cutting off his ring.
-Rik (some people misspell it using a c...)

[Phil Redmond]

Thank you, I do care and I am very flattered.
It has always been my intention to promote the use of practical experience and critical reasoning to discern the efficiency of any combat method. So rather than wasting my time on researching what method is "better", I prefer to objectively discover if what I'm doing serves its intended purpose. . . . . .I Thank you for your comment and I look forward to having more discussions like this in the future.

You're welcome. I have a student in Chicago that has no place to train daily. I'll recommend your school to him. I feel training in a good martial arts school is more important than the style or lineage.

BTW - it seems that there is an extra "L" in your name

Good come back.

[extrajoseph]

CLF (red) v WC (white) in one of the old Hong Kong tournaments.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTIwNzIwOTY=.html

[hskwarrior]

CLF (red) v WC (white) in one of the old Hong Kong tournaments.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTIwNzIwOTY=.html

The guy in red is Buk Sing Choy Lee Fut.