Lan Sao--does it violate the WC law of economy of motion?

[k gledhill]

KPM ... you're impressive

Classic forum lmao. Oh no tray ! We have been caught out !
: )

[wtxs]

Ah taking a quote out of context... I see what you did here!

I may have indeed, but do you understand the reason why?

Judging from your reply, you haven't a clue of what I did.

[KPM]

Is it because you also don't understand the difference between using technique, and practicing specific "applications" from the forms, so you had to take my reply to one point and make it look like that was my reply to a previous point, and because you are a bit of a nob?

Now you are arguing symantics....using technique vs. practicing applications...same thing. Another version of "double talk."

[k gledhill]

Now you are arguing symantics....using technique vs. practicing applications...same thing. Another version of "double talk."

Wrong KPM. Tray nailed it in his response. Chaos and plans don't mix well, unless you're telepathic.

[Paddington]

You charge a couple of hundred dollars for a one-day seminar.

I can visualize it.... Like Master Ken (or should that be Master Kev? )

"Thanks for coming guys, and thanks for the money. Now, there are people here with varying degrees of knowledge - don't worry, teaching progression is BS! So we're starting with what most people finish the system with. The knives!

"Now, get your partner to hold one of the knives firmly... Okay, now take this saw and..."

Look, forcing arguments across multiple threads is a part of the problem here. I've done it others have done it, we are all guilty of it sometimes. However, of late some are doing it more often than others.

Regardless I'll humour you here. I think it is a good idea to introduce the knives and some of the ideas about fighting with 'weapons' in year one. I think it is a good idea because it is a more honest approach, particularly given how intimately tied the weapon forms are to the empty hand techniques and forms (at least in my opinion).

For my own part my chi sau has changed quite a bit this past month when I have had the intent of thinking with the knives when chi sauing. I hate to say it but when chi sauing with my friend on Wednesday with this mind set, my chi sau started to look like PBs; I only picked up on the visual similarity when I reviewed my training clip for errors (there were plenty there). Anyway, this is another topic for another thread.

[Graham H]

I hate to say it but when chi sauing with my friend on Wednesday with this mind set, my chi sau started to look like PBs;

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahah!!!

Classic!

[GlennR]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahah!!!

Classic!

Bloody hell.... is there a vaccine for that!?!?

[Paddington]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahah!!!

Classic!

Don't misinterpret what I said. I think you are reading it with the wrong intent.

[BPWT]

I hate to say it but when chi sauing with my friend on Wednesday with this mind set, my chi sau started to look like PBs

For the first time on this forum, I'm actually lost for words.

[KPM]

No. Keith I am not arguing semantics.

--Yes, you are. I was simply talking about applying a movement. "Applying"..."practicing"...what' the difference? Don't you "practice" a technique with a certain use in mind? In the case in question the movement was pivoting into a Bong from the hands in a low position or pivoting into a Lan from the hand in a high position. I thought I made that pretty clear.

In your class, do you (or your teacher) pull out a guy and say "right let's have a look at this technique...Your opponent is attacking such and such, (pick an attack) and we are going to do blah blah (pick a VT technique) to counter his attack using this movement from the form." Everyone partner up and let's try"

---No. And that is not at all what I described in my post about the Chum Kiu form.

??? Or someone asks what is this movement in the form and you explain it by saying "someone throws a punch like this and you use this movement like that" etc

--Well yeah. If someone asked about that move I would say "one way to see it is as defending with a Bong when your hands are low and you are suddenly punch from the side." Or I could say "one way to see it is as reacting with a Bong if you are in an exchange, have closed with the opponent, are in contact with him, and he puts pressure on your forearm from above in the process of trying to punch or grapple you." Or I could say "this motion can be applied anytime you need to pivot into a Bong Sau...for whatever reason!"

Well, we don't do that. That is what I mean by practicing "applications".
We train the principal concepts (developed in the forms) that underly technique. Not the specific techniques themselves.

--And what I described above was practicing the principle of using a pivot when performing a Bong Sau. You don't do that? Just what principle concept is being developed by that pivoting motion between Bong and Lan in the Chum Kiu form if not this? And you are saying you never practice stepping with the Bong Sau? Or pivoting with the Bong Sau? Or doing a rising punch? You never practice front kicks? Because those are all certainly specific techniques from the Chum Kiu form.

It may be semantics to you, but it is a world of difference in approach to training Ving Tsun,....... both in terms of actual practice, and a fundamentally different approach, and understanding of the forms.

--You said before that the motion of pivoting between the Bong and the Lan in Chum Kiu has no direct application. Why wouldn't it? The forms certainly contain concepts to be developed. But they also demonstrate correct ways to perform given techniques. Why else would there be a very specific way of doing that technique? The forms not only embody concepts, but also provide some technique practice. If there are techniques, then they can certainly be taken from the forms and applied or "practiced." So again. I think you are arguing about semantics. No one ever suggested that by saying we are "applying techniques from the form" that we mean we are talkign a run of 3 or more techniques in sequence and expecting them to work that way in reality. And I find it hard to believe that in the PB lineage you never do fundamental training that involves practicing individual techniques that are in the forms.

[wtxs]

Is it because you also don't understand the difference between using technique, and practicing specific "applications" from the forms, so you had to take my reply to one point and make it look like that was my reply to a previous point, and because you are a bit of a nob?

Hey Raaay Raay , a nob? Seriously ....

Along with few others on the forum, we have been studying WC since the late 70's and early 80's (possibly before you were born, or still in diapers), and we are still learning the finer points of WC.

Excuuuuse me Grandmaster Ray, for I dare to question your level of experience or understand of the WC system. Don't be so quick to tell me and others that we don't understand, it only show us your arrogance and ignorance. You think you have gotten all the answers ... oh please ...

The school just got back in session, don't cut any more classes ... or you'll have to make it up in summer school.

[wtxs]

Wow! Toys out of pram stuff!
What was all that about?!! I simply pointed out that you didn't understand the difference between applying VT and practicing "applications", (hence you mistakenly thinking I was "double talking")?

I made no aspersion to your length of time practicing, etc etc...or that I was some kind of authority, or any of that!
That was all you flower

Thank you kindly for pointing out my misunderstanding ways. Guess I'm gonna have to attend summer school in order to comprehend what you are saying.

When you tell some one that they don't understand, it does imply you "know" what you're talking about ... therefore the authority on the subject.

And by the way ... have an good and safe weekend, don''t know where you are, we have lots of flooding here.

[BPWT]

I agree with most of that Keith, (except the pressure on the forearm bit, but ffs let's not even go there! ).

This is an example of Not doing specific applications I was referring to, and seeing the form in a more abstract, non specific way.

But this, what you're describing, is the way most people train, ffs!

Sometimes in class we work a drill and it is obvious that what we train comes from a specific part of a form. Other times we work something that doesn't look like something specific from a form, but the instructor, in relation to the drill, will reference something within the form - why? - because while it may look different the concept is the same, or the body method/mechanics are the same.

Wing Tsun is a conceptual system, but not something that rests purely in the mind. We're learning to fight, to hit someone while avoiding being hit. You have to learn to use/apply the concepts, in a physical sense. The forms teach many things, one of them is the system's concepts... so of course you learn to apply the concepts from the forms, and the techniques/body motions/footwork of the system are, in part, an aspect of the physical expressions of the concepts.

So of course you apply what's in the forms. You're applying something obvious to see, or perhaps less obvious to see, but always you're applying the physical representation of either a concept, principle or strategy.

I haven't attended a single WT class that taught me "if faced with this specific attack, this is the specific technique you must use to counter it, as applied directly from this part of a form."

We work on dealing with various attacks, with various different options of response - always keeping in mind that a given technique/motion is not the only answer, but that whatever we do (physically), is based on the conceptual framework... and more often than not, the conceptual, principal and strategic basis is given as a guide in the forms.

[Paddington]

For the first time on this forum, I'm actually lost for words.

I think people are reading me incorrectly. BPWT, I mentioned it for your benefit as an example of, from my perspective as a student, where I see aspects of the knife form that can be taught in year one. You know in that other thread where you struck up an argument with kevin or t_ray on this point?

I offered it not to say that I am at such and such a skill (I don't claim to be a sifu) but rather offered it as one of my training experiences. When I watched PB chi sau and the way he used his 'bong', it reminded me very much of a movement in the knife form. Also the way he exploits the idea of the 'flat' and the 'edge', a principle of swordsmanship more generally, caught my eye. That is just my opinion and what I see in his chi sau, I could be wrong.

Anyway, so not being a PB student I just looked at it and thought where in my forms could I engender that in my arms? So I tested some things out recorded and reviewed. I asked my training partner what it felt like to him etc. That is just how I train and yeah, aspects of the knife form (and swordsmanship more generally)I see as totally relevant in year one.

EDIT: Just to add using my bong differently is quite recent and I have jim halliwell to thank for discussing with me and showing me different ways to use bong. That said I take sole responsibility for the interpretation I just gave above!

[KPM]

Ok, then if you don't that might explain, why you didn't get what i meant. In previous lineages, we did that kind of training all the time. Doing " the applications from the forms"

So are you saying you may have jumped to some unwarranted conclusions about what I meant by "applying"??


I agree with most of that Keith, (except the pressure on the forearm bit, but ffs let's not even go there! ). This is an example of Not doing specific applications I was referring to, and seeing the form in a more abstract, non specific way.

Wait. Graham got all excited when I talked about multiple applications for the same techniques or motions and now you are saying you guys look at it in an "abstract, non specific way." Could that mean that....wait for it....things can be applied in more than one way???? Isn't that what "non specific" means?


i did?!! Where??

Sorry. It was Graham that said that. So you disagree with Graham? Do you also disagree with him when he said that what I wrote about the Chum Kiu form was "way off the mark" and "nonsense"??

i am beginning to realise it is you who are arguing semantics mate.
what about 1 technique?....1 "application"...and expecting that 1 to work that way in reality?

Uh...1 technique working in reality? Let's see...does the punch not actually work in reality? Does pivoting with a Bong Sau not actually work in reality? Does shoving someone away with your forearm not actually work in reality? You're making no sense.

And, rather than acknowledging that you may have jumped to some conclusions about what I meant by "applying" and that we weren't really that far apart....instead you are saying that I'm the one arguing semantics????? All of this sounds suspiciously like more "double talk" to me.


Do you?...Well believe it! Its true!

So you don't train like 99.9% of the rest of the Wing Chun world and do any kind of drilling and reps to learn good technique? You don't teach a beginner how to form a Bong or a Taan or a Jum by having them practice it solo while someone observes and corrects? You don't practice footwork by walking solo across the floor to train balance, spacing of the feet, etc? And you believe that Wong Shun Leung didn't do any of these things either?



We practice our techniques of course.... Just not specifically applied against a partner, throwing a specific attack

You never practice the Pak Da drill with one partner punching and the other doing Pak Sau or other techniques? You never practice Single Chi Sau where one partner punches and the other uses a Bong? You never practice the Lop Da drill? Those all involve specific attacks.

Maybe I'm wrong. But from all the things you guys are writing, what you seem to be saying is:

1. The forms teach concepts, but aren't any good for learning technique
2. You don't actually practice solo to develop technique, but expect it to come out when you practice (apply?) the concepts from the forms
3. You don't do any arranged 2 man drilling (this technique against that technique), so I guess everything revolves around Chi Sau? We certainly haven't seen any sparring footage posted..only Chi Sau footage.
4. So....you practice the forms to learn concepts that you then....(the only word I can think of is "apply", but you don't do "applications") practice (?) in Chi Sau and are confident that good techniques will emerge from that without ever having actually rehearsed/practiced those techniques solo.

I'm not trying to be an @$$ here. I'm just trying to get you to actually think about what you are writing and realize how it is coming across. Because these are the things that you and Graham have said or at least implied.