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

[KPM]

Oh dear.... Now it "multiple applications"

Rolling eyes, double talk. And you didn't bother to answer the question. What is the difference between my saying essentially that things can be used for more than one purpose (applied in various ways) and saying that you see them in an "abstract, non-specific way"??? Doesn't "non-specific" imply that it can be done in more than one way??? It was a simple question.


Honestly?...... Yeah.

Which question are you answering "yeah" to??? "Yeah" you disagree with what Graham wrote....or "yeah" you think what I wrote was off the mark and nonsense? You guys do stuff like this and then wonder why you are misunderstood and no one "gets it"!!!??


Of course they can work... But just as you said you wouldn't practice a sequence of 2 or 3 techniques.. In the same fashion we dont practice 1 specific technique in response to another.

Someone is punching towards you and you wouldn't Pak Sau? Isn't that doing one specific response to another?

I wasnt suggesting any single VT technique wouldnt work... Again you still don't (or won't?) get it.

Because you aren't making any sense!!


And were back to accusations of "double talk".. You are the one who is jumping to conclusions as you still don't get what i mean by doing "applications".

Because you have done a terrible job of explaining it! Look, you guys say you are so abstract and conceptual but you cannot put a coherent explanation together. If others "don't get it", did you ever stop to think its because you can't explain it? This makes me wonder just how much you really understand what you think you understand. In contrast, Hung Fa Yi is one of the most "conceptual" systems around...with ideas like "heaven, earth, and man, and "time space continuums." Yet they can do a pretty job of describing what they do.


Do we teach positions, practice drills, footwork? Are you kidding?!! You honestly think we dont? Honestly you really think we don't?!!

I was just trying to get you to see the absurdity of what you were writing. You still don't get that!



So you quote me above... And then ask?
Keith, I don't believe you really think that in PBVT we don't do dan chi or drills.

No, I don't. Again, I'm trying to get you see how what you are writing just doesn't make sense.



I am writing to explain the best way I can, but you are still not getting it. I'm sure other here, understand completely what I am writing and it makes perfect sense to them. It is you that need to do the thinking.

Really? Please, anyone out there with no exposure to PB lineage teaching that is following along with these explanations without problem...please chime in. Likewise, anyone following along that is wondering what the heck they are talking about...please chime in!

Finally....thank you Keith. I have now reached the point where Graham, Kev and others are, and realise it is a complete waste of time and effort trying to honestly explain things from our perspective.

Well, here's a word of advice for all the PB guys. Don't come into a thread with purely negative comments and tear down what someone else has said if you are unwilling or unable to say why you don't like it and provide your alternative understanding in a logical and reasonable fashion.

[KPM]

Forgive me, i havent bothered to read this post.... I just saw it and realised you seemed to have missed this bit...

Well, see there's the problem. Too often you guys just don't bother to read and try to understand what others are saying. You just conclude right from the start that there is no way they could know what they are talking about because they are one of the "other guys."

[KPM]

And frankly, from my POV...I can see/read good points on both sides of this rant between you folks, even given the lack of clarity BECAUSE ITS A FORUM DISCUSSION. Ultimately (and perhaps obviously?) there is a gap in comprehension when trying to explain your two different points.

Thanks for chiming in. But really, the two different points are PB lineage ideas vs. "typical" or "standard" WCK ideas. So my point of view should seem pretty straight-forward and familiar to most WCK folks. But tell us honestly....can you make heads or tails of what Graham and TRay said? Does all this "we don't do applications from the forms" and "the movements from the forms have no real use" and "we don't do a technique in response to another specific technique" make sense to you?



Two possible solutions:
1) KPM, the next time a PB guy posts something, simply reply with: "wrong, incorrect, ludicrous, LMFAO, way of mark, and of course... only my sifu got it right ".

Yeah, I like that one! Maybe we all should start doing that!!!!

2) You both constrain your 'discussion' to something specific. What I mean is, perhaps try one 'abstract concept' to discuss, one 'hand' or 'technique' to discuss, and phrase your questions so they only require a yes or no answer.

Well, the problem here is getting them to carry on a coherent discussion. We started out discussing a simple motion from Chum Kiu....the pivot from Bong to Lan and Lan to Bong. I think I described it pretty clearly. Then Graham and TRay took a shot and look where we are now! Just how complicated should it be to explain your take on one motion? And all you have to do is read through this thread and see how often they just flat didn't bother to respond to or answer direct questions. Or when TRay did respond with a simple "yeah" it wasn't clear which question he was responding to.

Another problem is getting them to carry on a polite discussion. Graham starts the whole thing off by telling everyone that posted on this thread that they are "way off the mark" and calls all my explanations "nonsense." And he has done exactly the same kind of thing on other threads. Just how fruitful of a discussion do you think will result from an attitude like that?

Kevin is the only one that posts anything of value....that is only when he decides to take the time and make the effort to do so and isn't just responding with "whatever dude."

[KPM]

Interestingly enough, I just found this comment from a link that Joy just posted in another thread. It is from an interview that was done with Tsui Tsun Ting and Wong Shun Leung:

The second set has three quite different variations of the Bong sau. One is to really whack the opponent's arm away. Another is if your Bong sau is already in contact with the opponent's arm, and he is pressing you - for example, their left arm presses your right Bong sau. In this case you can change the Bong sau to a Lan sau. The Lan sau is performed with the wrist higher than the elbow, not level, in the Wong Shun Leung version. This brings the opponent's force down.

Does that sound familiar to anyone?

[BPWT]

Interestingly enough, I just found this comment from a link that Joy just posted in another thread. It is from an interview that was done with Tsui Tsun Ting and Wong Shun Leung:

The second set has three quite different variations of the Bong sau. One is to really whack the opponent's arm away. Another is if your Bong sau is already in contact with the opponent's arm, and he is pressing you - for example, their left arm presses your right Bong sau. In this case you can change the Bong sau to a Lan sau. The Lan sau is performed with the wrist higher than the elbow, not level, in the Wong Shun Leung version. This brings the opponent's force down.

Does that sound familiar to anyone?

Pressing you... change from Bong to Lan... WSL version brings the opponent's force down...

All of the above indicates reacting to contact, dealing with force via the contact, redirecting said force... all things that the PB guys say does not exist in WSL VT, which WSL passed down accurately to PB.

[wtxs]

Pressing you... change from Bong to Lan... WSL version brings the opponent's force down...

All of the above indicates reacting to contact, dealing with force via the contact, redirecting said force... all things that the PB guys say does not exist in WSL VT, which WSL passed down accurately to PB.

Wrong, Wrong and Wrong!!! Where do you get those crazy ideas ... !

[guy b.]

Well, the problem here is getting them to carry on a coherent discussion. We started out discussing a simple motion from Chum Kiu....the pivot from Bong to Lan and Lan to Bong. I think I described it pretty clearly. Then Graham and TRay took a shot and look where we are now! Just how complicated should it be to explain your take on one motion? And all you have to do is read through this thread and see how often they just flat didn't bother to respond to or answer direct questions. Or when TRay did respond with a simple "yeah" it wasn't clear which question he was responding to.

Another problem is getting them to carry on a polite discussion. Graham starts the whole thing off by telling everyone that posted on this thread that they are "way off the mark" and calls all my explanations "nonsense." And he has done exactly the same kind of thing on other threads. Just how fruitful of a discussion do you think will result from an attitude like that?

Kevin is the only one that posts anything of value....that is only when he decides to take the time and make the effort to do so and isn't just responding with "whatever dude."

Who cares if someone tells you your understanding is a load of crap on an internet forum? Lol.

If you think you can get something out of it (which you obviously do given the way you chase discussion with these guys) then you just need to swallow your pride and listen to what they have to say. I would even be agreeing with them that my approach is crap if I wanted them to share something with me. The chance of their agreeing that your approach is great is close to zero. I don't see why you need them to validate what you do? They don't seem to want anything from you after all..

[KPM]

Who cares if someone tells you your understanding is a load of crap on an internet forum? Lol.

If you think you can get something out of it (which you obviously do given the way you chase discussion with these guys) then you just need to swallow your pride and listen to what they have to say. I would even be agreeing with them that my approach is crap if I wanted them to share something with me. The chance of their agreeing that your approach is great is close to zero. I don't see why you need them to validate what you do? They don't seem to want anything from you after all..

Yeah Guy, you're probably right. Graham picked this fight, I just felt the need to follow through with it. But wasn't it you that pointed out that this kind of drama is what makes the forum more interesting?

[KPM]

Guy is probably right, but I did feel the need to follow up on this one:

TRay said:
I am writing to explain the best way I can, but you are still not getting it. I'm sure other here, understand completely what I am writing and it makes perfect sense to them. It is you that need to do the thinking.

There are over 3,000 hits on this thread, so there has to be more than 6 of us following along. I want to hear from you. Who amongst you that has no knowledge of Phillip Bayer's approach to Wing Chun have been able to follow what Graham and TRay wrote in this thread.....so that you "understand completely" and it "makes perfect sense"????? Who out there really "gets it"????

Please speak up, because maybe I am just a complete tool and I'm really missing something here!

[k gledhill]

Guy is probably right, but I did feel the need to follow up on this one:

TRay said:
I am writing to explain the best way I can, but you are still not getting it. I'm sure other here, understand completely what I am writing and it makes perfect sense to them. It is you that need to do the thinking.

There are over 3,000 hits on this thread, so there has to be more than 6 of us following along. I want to hear from you. Who amongst you that has no knowledge of Phillip Bayer's approach to Wing Chun have been able to follow what Graham and TRay wrote in this thread.....so that you "understand completely" and it "makes perfect sense"????? Who out there really "gets it"????

Please speak up, because maybe I am just a complete tool and I'm really missing something here!

It's not YOU it's the information you're missing. Because you're trying to understand from a perspective unable to see ours, the subtleties , as mentioned before , require hands on and verbal exchanges. You can't taste an apple by reading about it or seeing a clip of it.

[KPM]

It's not YOU it's the information you're missing. Because you're trying to understand from a perspective unable to see ours, the subtleties , as mentioned before , require hands on and verbal exchanges. You can't taste an apple by reading about it or seeing a clip of it.

We're talking about your fundamental approach to Wing Chun. The thing that sets you apart from EVERYONE else in the Wing Chun world. Your basic idea of how Wing Chun should work which explains why EVERYONE else is wrong. Yet you can't write out a clear, rational, coherent explanation of it??? Are you sure you understand it as well as you think you do?

Oh, and TRay seems to be convinced it IS me, and that his explanation was crystal clear!

[BPWT]

The goal cannot be for the mind alone to assimilate the concepts... You need them to be integrated in mind and body - they need to manifest physically. When attacked you can't just use the mind (that is to say, you can't think your way to a win - thinking in and of itself).

Your body needs to act in accordance with the concepts - and so in this sense you apply the concepts physically. If you look at the forms from a conceptual standpoint, you still need to apply those concepts.

Partner drills, Chi Sau, Lat Sau, sparring - all should teach you to make the concepts live, and reflex based. Sometimes this can be achieved through something like a direct and obvious application, sometimes from just the body mechanics being explored, etc, etc.

When you practice the Bong/Lap cycle, for example, you run through a prescribed routine of movements - all of the movements found in the forms. Within that are also conceptual and principal-based lessons. When you free up the drill and/or add in more, this too will be based on concepts, and should also be reflex based. But everything comes out with a physical result. Your strikes, footwork, body methods, positioning, bridging work, etc, is all found in SNT, CK, BT, MYJ.

[guy b.]

There are over 3,000 hits on this thread, so there has to be more than 6 of us following along. I want to hear from you. Who amongst you that has no knowledge of Phillip Bayer's approach to Wing Chun have been able to follow what Graham and TRay wrote in this thread.....so that you "understand completely" and it "makes perfect sense"????? Who out there really "gets it"????

I don't usually find their arguments that difficult to follow. Haven't paid too much attention to the detail of this one but I think I have the gist of it

[KPM]

KPM: let me ask you something, via an example, that may help this tedious conversation...

Pak sau: what does this mean to you?

In your kwoon/lineage, how is it plucked out of the form and introduced to a beginner student?

Did you inherit or was passed down (or create yourself if you are the instructor) certain basic level drills so that students can learn about pak sau?

HW, I appreciate you trying to make some sense of things. But what makes you think this would be any more productive? I'm almost certain that ANYTHING that I write will be met with "that's way off the mark" and "total nonsense!" I can't recall a single similar thread that the PB guys have been involved in that they didn't just dismiss what anyone else had to say because they are convinced that they are the ONLY ones that have learned the "true" way to do Wing Chun. Can you? This particular thread is a perfect example. But I tell you what....I'm willing to take part in such a discussion if Kevin or TRay is willing to go first! And I promise I will not respond in the same fashion that they typically do!

And BTW.... what is your answer to my question above?

[KPM]

I don't usually find their arguments that difficult to follow. Haven't paid too much attention to the detail of this one but I think I have the gist of it

The "gist" of it? How about "understand completely" so that it "makes perfect sense"? Do you really "get it"?