Don't bother to read this

[KPM]

You're changing up the list I referred to.

What list are you talking about?

You implied from chi sao and the context was discussion of using turning etc. from chi sao correlations. In other words you're attempting to use a drill position of complying students who allow the proximity and arm equalization for drills as a 1:1 fighting application. : )

Uh no. Have you read what I posted? WCxxx made the comment that it was possible for the opponent to make you pivot. You and Graham said this was nonsense. So I provided a brief list of some of the actions that can take place from a contact position, the last of which was a pivot. Then to make it clearer I said this applied to any "clinch-like" position and provided examples from Boxing, Muay Thai, and MMA.

So, are you still maintaining that my list of 4 actions doesn't apply to fighting? Are you still maintaining that Wing Chun never ends up in a "clinch-like" position like Boxing, Muay Thai and MMA does?

If you're in NYC drop by its easier to show you a diagonal line is better than straight into the face of a clinch.

And where did I say anything about diagonal vs. straight lines? My list included stepping in and stepping back. Either of these could be on a straight line or diagonal line. Why are you so quick to dismiss what someone has to say without even making an effort to understand what they mean? Again, this makes your understanding of PB's Wing Chun sound very one-dimensional.

[KPM]

Tacky? Did you read his response to me after I tried to apologize and further explain my perspective?

Yes I did. I didn't see anything wrong with it. He said this:
Even though I don't really want to be insulting, this painfully simple exercise will come across that way, but I guess I feel the need to be blunt. But, you have thick skin, so I think we'll still be good.

Sounds to me like he was afraid you would take offense and was making an effort to avoid that. Sounds like it didn't work.

[k gledhill]

You're changing up the list I referred to.

What list are you talking about?

You implied from chi sao and the context was discussion of using turning etc. from chi sao correlations. In other words you're attempting to use a drill position of complying students who allow the proximity and arm equalization for drills as a 1:1 fighting application. : )

Uh no. Have you read what I posted? WCxxx made the comment that it was possible for the opponent to make you pivot. You and Graham said this was nonsense. So I provided a brief list of some of the actions that can take place from a contact position, the last of which was a pivot. Then to make it clearer I said this applied to any "clinch-like" position and provided examples from Boxing, Muay Thai, and MMA.

So, are you still maintaining that my list of 4 actions doesn't apply to fighting? Are you still maintaining that Wing Chun never ends up in a "clinch-like" position like Boxing, Muay Thai and MMA does?

If you're in NYC drop by its easier to show you a diagonal line is better than straight into the face of a clinch.

And where did I say anything about diagonal vs. straight lines? My list included stepping in and stepping back. Either of these could be on a straight line or diagonal line. Why are you so quick to dismiss what someone has to say without even making an effort to understand what they mean? Again, this makes your understanding of PB's Wing Chun sound very one-dimensional.

Never mind stay in DC ; )

[KPM]

People's responses is becoming ridiculous on this forum with the loss of context. It's like you have to post a complete bible on WC for someone not to throw a fit.

Well, you post was rather long and involved and hard to follow. Its not so much loss of context, but understanding what the heck you were talking about! Wasn't that clear from the responses you got? But you did say this:

It is of my opinion, and an opinion that has been validated, so to speak, that by training this "balanced" rotation of the body with regards to facing, one is developing the skill to simply "face" quickly while maintaing a balance of attacking side forward, opposite side foot forward. That position delivers the most force and allows the most balance. Now a lot of people will look at that statement and just say "no sh!t" but those people also don't realize how hard it would be to stay true to that positioning with "every" motion in a real situation.

That certainly sounds like your position was that pivoting or rotating was used in just about every motion, and that your definition of when it is appropriate may differ widely from others.


For the last time, it is of my opinion, that "balanced rotation" is the cornerstone of good WC and if trained well will significantly improve your WC. When in a real situation there will most likely be NO arm contact! You will have to MOVE. If you want to think straight lines of movement is going to give you a leg up, more power to you, but I think you will probably get knocked out trying to chase a moving target that way.

It sounds to me like you are using any kind of angling as part of your "balanced rotation", while most of us are talking about using the classic Wing Chun pivot or turning stance. Maybe that is why people are not following your explanations. BTW, just who are you? I hate meaningless screen pseudonames.

[KPM]

Never mind stay in DC ; )

There you go sounding like an %%&&$ again. You guys are giving PB a bad name around here. Do you realize that?

[Wayfaring]

If you're in NYC drop by its easier to show you a diagonal line is better than straight into the face of a clinch.

I don't need to go to NYC to understand that a diagonal line is better than a straight line in the face of a clinch. I see this several times a week already.

[k gledhill]

There you go sounding like an %%&&$ again. You guys are giving PB a bad name around here. Do you realize that?

I can't reply without giving a play by play on fighting with wsl pb vt everytime. If you want to follow wc1277 turning ideas that's your perogative.

[k gledhill]

I don't need to go to NYC to understand that a diagonal line is better than a straight line in the face of a clinch. I see this several times a week already.

Why machine guns were placed in the corners of open fields in combat, you didn't have to turn back and forth in the center of the field missing more than you hit, and staying nicely centered for incoming fire from a whole forward line advancing on you. ; )

[WC1277]

Yes I did. I didn't see anything wrong with it. He said this:
Even though I don't really want to be insulting, this painfully simple exercise will come across that way, but I guess I feel the need to be blunt. But, you have thick skin, so I think we'll still be good.

Sounds to me like he was afraid you would take offense and was making an effort to avoid that. Sounds like it didn't work.

No, it was sarcasm.

"For this exercise I want you to stand in your favorite room. Now, without rotation, twisting or bracing walk straight into the wall. It may take a few times to convince yourself that it can involve the whole body and really "hammer that nail". And it may take a few more times before it feels "natural". But isn't that king fu training? there are no free rides. If it still feels like this action would lead to a kinder, gentler chi sau, try it faster and allow no hesitation in your intent."

I'm give him the clever choice of words. But this whole conversation in general was unnecessary, simply started because I used the word "we" the possibly one out of five times I have out of some 500 posts. Joy was always cool with me and used a lot more tact if he felt the need to correct something.

[WC1277]

You don't have to waste time for drills and development on sparring ! Classic

Classic! Taking it out of context, again!

[KPM]

I can't reply without giving a play by play on fighting with wsl pb vt everytime. If you want to follow wc1277 turning ideas that's your perogative.

No, a "play by play" isn't necessary. Simply responding to points people make and questions they ask are enough. I don't follow all of WCxxxx's turning ideas. Did you miss this?.......

Uh no. Have you read what I posted? WCxxx made the comment that it was possible for the opponent to make you pivot. You and Graham said this was nonsense. So I provided a brief list of some of the actions that can take place from a contact position, the last of which was a pivot. Then to make it clearer I said this applied to any "clinch-like" position and provided examples from Boxing, Muay Thai, and MMA.

So, are you still maintaining that my list of 4 actions doesn't apply to fighting? Are you still maintaining that Wing Chun never ends up in a "clinch-like" position like Boxing, Muay Thai and MMA does?

You chose not to respond to any of the points I've made. You just say that it isn't "VT". You're as bad as Hendrik!

[k gledhill]

No, a "play by play" isn't necessary. Simply responding to points people make and questions they ask are enough. I don't follow all of WCxxxx's turning ideas. Did you miss this?.......

Uh no. Have you read what I posted? WCxxx made the comment that it was possible for the opponent to make you pivot. You and Graham said this was nonsense. So I provided a brief list of some of the actions that can take place from a contact position, the last of which was a pivot. Then to make it clearer I said this applied to any "clinch-like" position and provided examples from Boxing, Muay Thai, and MMA.

So, are you still maintaining that my list of 4 actions doesn't apply to fighting? Are you still maintaining that Wing Chun never ends up in a "clinch-like" position like Boxing, Muay Thai and MMA does?

You chose not to respond to any of the points I've made. You just say that it isn't "VT". You're as bad as Hendrik!

You still are missing my point. To answer you I need to give a response encompassing my whole way of thinking so you can understand my reply. I can't say if you do that, I will do xyz because , who knows. What I can say is YOU don't understand our way of thinking either. For a guy to turn me I would have made and error to recover from or try to react and reface ASAP. Our repertoire is based on NOT being turned by others but to let others turn themselves or give them a hand ( fist ) instead.
It's hard to be clear about our thinking unless you have met it personally. I know because until I met pb years ago I too thought I knew vt.
A lot of guys like wcxxx whoever she is, use turning and gates etc... This is fine as long as the partner is equally clueless. : )

[KPM]

For a guy to turn me I would have made and error to recover from or try to react and reface ASAP. Our repertoire is based on NOT being turned by others but to let others turn themselves or give them a hand ( fist ) instead.

Ah! See! That wasn't so hard, was it? Let me recap what I posted before:

If I am "square on" to an opponent and in contact and he is applying force to my "bridge", I have several options. Some of them include:

1. stand my ground, brace and push back to break his structure, possibly taking a step into him

2. be pushed over backwards and off-balance with my own structure broken

3. take a step back, essentially "giving ground"

4. absorb his force very briefly and use it to redirect him and possibly cause him to over-balance by pivoting my stance

It seems to me that option #4 is essentially "allowing the opponent to rotate me."

Sounds like you're saying that #4 would not be a preferred option, but something done when you have no other choice. #2 would also definitely not be a preferred option, and #3 would be lower on my preference list as well. But hey, **** happens! Now let me point out that previously you said NONE of this "is VT." So it sure seems to me that you haven't even made an effort to understand what I was writing. Just a "knee jerk" reaction...this isn't VT! Can you see where that would be a bit off-putting? Just like some of Hendrik's responses?

[k gledhill]

For a guy to turn me I would have made and error to recover from or try to react and reface ASAP. Our repertoire is based on NOT being turned by others but to let others turn themselves or give them a hand ( fist ) instead.

Ah! See! That wasn't so hard, was it? Let me recap what I posted before:

If I am "square on" to an opponent and in contact and he is applying force to my "bridge", I have several options. Some of them include:

1. stand my ground, brace and push back to break his structure, possibly taking a step into him

2. be pushed over backwards and off-balance with my own structure broken

3. take a step back, essentially "giving ground"

4. absorb his force very briefly and use it to redirect him and possibly cause him to over-balance by pivoting my stance

It seems to me that option #4 is essentially "allowing the opponent to rotate me."

Sounds like you're saying that #4 would not be a preferred option, but something done when you have no other choice. #2 would also definitely not be a preferred option, and #3 would be lower on my preference list as well. But hey, **** happens! Now let me point out that previously you said NONE of this "is VT." So it sure seems to me that you haven't even made an effort to understand what I was writing. Just a "knee jerk" reaction...this isn't VT! Can you see where that would be a bit off-putting? Just like some of Hendrik's responses?

You're reading your ideas into your #'s not ours. Like I said if your in NYC drop in.

[YouKnowWho]

2. be pushed over backwards and off-balance with my own structure broken

3. take a step back, essentially "giving ground"

4. absorb his force very briefly and use it to redirect him and possibly cause him to over-balance by pivoting my stance

It seems to me that option #4 is essentially "allowing the opponent to rotate me."

The 2, 3, 4 can be just 1 move.

- Your opponent comes in too strong.
- You step one leg back,
- "rotate" your body to be outside of your opponent's striking path, and
- throw a 45 degree downward "haymaker" right in front of you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYw9Q3Eti5A

Your haymaker may knock your opponent's straight punches down. If your opponent moves in too fast, your haymaker may even knock on the back of your opponent's head and drop him.