AdrianK,
Fair enough, then please provide an example which does not fall into one of those three catagories. I mean it should be that simple if those three are not the only methods to deal with an attack no matter how broad the catagory.
As to intellectualizing, what is wrong with understanding things more deeply?
Besides, this does not result in;
When A does B you use C type of thing. Rather it opens the possibilities to respond to A doing B in any manner of methods.
Consider Chi Sua for example; The basic Dan Chi exercise is based on three hand positions on each side. However, proper practice does not limit one to those three hand positions but provides a framework on which to build in relation to the energy being experienced. Thus is allows one many more options than Taun/Bong/Palm or Fook/Jum-Jut/Punch. The concept taught is more important than the specific technique, imo. Although you need to start somewhere.
Consider the three methods I posted to be like the idea of covering. If one understands how to cover or utilize angles like in FMA. Then one does not need to worry about the specific attack. If it comes into a line covered by a specific angle than one defends in pretty much the same way as one will cover the area of that angle.
This is the same as the gate theory. WC has several gates and in a Wu Sau/Man Sau each arm would provide coverage for an area of that gate. One will adapt to what comes into that gate and respond accordingly, but as long as you are defending or dealing with one gate you have a certain range with which to utilize.
In my mind WC should be simple and direct. How much simpler than to break soemthing down into universal concepts which can be applied no matter what technique is encountered. If there truly are only three ways to deal with any attack then understanding those three ways or concepts, gives one a very broad base on which to build. It also means that one does not need to think about how to respond to an attack and go through hundreds of possible responses. You would simply evade, avoid or intercept depending on your position and what was needed.
Considering that WC has only three empty hand forms and the rest of the systems structure in training, it seems to me that WC is about simplicity and efficiency.
What is more efficient; to approach things from a broad and universally applicable mindset or to complicate and over analyze every movement possible? In what I am suggesting there is no need to over analyze, you deal with an attack in one of three ways and that is it. Yes it may be broad, but then again how many ways are there to really throw a punch or kick? Yet there are many variations.
Consider this, human movement can be broken down into the following:
- Sitting
- Standing
- Crawling
- Walking
- Running
Anything else, to include punching and or kicking, would fall into one of the above catagories. Or would you not agree with this thinking?
What I am seeking is someone who is able to say that by doing this one falls outside of one of the three catagories I mentioned. So far I have not heard anything which shows that there are more or that those three are not inclusive.
However, if there are only three methods, than ones approach to combat can be based on expanding based on them as a core.
So here is a question for you and everyone else;
What catagory of the three I suggest would a shoot or take down be considered? Or if it is outside of the three please explain how and what apparoach it would represent.