Questions for Graham

[LFJ]

Some folks fixate on "technique" application. So they ask questions like you; "what do you do if someone punches you like this?" with ideas of technique responses like paak-da and taan-da, etc.. In the end you're still asking what technique we will use to respond. If we do that, we are back to preset 1:1 application, and as we're trying to explain, we don't do that.

No, that's not what I mean. If your Chi Sau partner suddenly shoves you away as he steps back and launches a hard kickboxer style sidekick, how do you respond? Maybe you sidestep, maybe you Gan Sau, maybe you Gum Sau...or something else. It's not "preset."

You've done exactly the same thing. You've given a hypothetical attack and offered three possible responses. However spontaneously you apply them, those are your preset techniques to defend against the sidekick.

I assume you pull these out and drill them too? That's the type of conditioned technique response we don't do, 1:1 applications.

to ensure that you are prepared for such a thing when sparring or fighting a non-Wing Chun guy. Same for someone shooting in for the takedown. I don't think "standard" Wing Chun training prepares you for things like that. Do you?

Yes, I do. Is your Wing Chun designed to fight only other Wing Chun practitioners? That's like a sport or game, not a realistic approach to fighting.

In other words, how do you train or prepare for "non-Wing Chun" attacks that are very different from what you practice on a daily basis?

The VT I train is usable against any kind of fighter, as it should be. So I don't understand your question.

How do you know for sure you can stop a boxer's tight hook if no one has ever thrown one at you?

Well, first of all, I don't try to stop a boxer's tight hook and I will neither be in range nor stood in position for it like you see boxers doing all the time. The first school I had years ago was shared with boxing and MT trainers. We had a ring and sparred together regularly in the evenings. Good times.

[YouKnowWho]

I take it you are one of those who practice "moves against a boxer",.."moves against a grappler" nonsense?

Where will you be able to develop your grappling skill if you don't deal with a grappler?

Let me use another example here.

When your opponent's left arm wraps your right arm, his right hand pushes on your neck, his right leg hooks on your right leg, What will be your best defense at that moment?

http://judoinfo.com/images/animation.../osotogari.htm

Your best defense is to move your left leg back, drop yourself into a low bow-arrow stance, and spin your body to your right. This way your have put all your weight on your right leg and it's harder for your opponent to unbalance you.

http://imageshack.us/a/img13/5448/oldpic22.jpg

Will you be able to apply this counter properly if you don't train "low bow-arrow stance"? Will you be able to train this in your normal sticky hand drill that your opponent don't attack you this way?

[KPM]

Yes. There are correct or incorrect positions and responses if thats what you mean?

Yes. Because on the other thread when I asked about correcting positions I got this whole "Bong Sau is not a position" non-sense, even after footage of PB correcting Obasi's Bong Sau positioning was pointed out. So hopefully you can see why it has been so frustrating trying to discuss things here.

Now, if you will follow my logic....if there is right and wrong way to do specific techniques, why would you say that they don't have any applications in the forms? Graham said that the movement in Chum Kiu pivoting between Bong and Lan was purely to train the concept and the pivot and the techniques themselves have no direct application. But if there is a right way to do the Bong and the Lan, wouldn't it be in reference to something? Wouldn't that "something" be how they are meant to be used? So how can you say that no application is implied by movements in the forms?

[slick69]

Good post. High speed errors : / this where Philipp is jaw dropping fast . I get students asking what he is doing in clips because they can't see it after repeated attempts to decipher the speed.

Yes we know, he walks on water and turns water into wine.
Getting back to reality, what does he says his combat experience is?

[thedreamer7]

Well, first of all, I don't try to stop a boxer's tight hook and I will neither be in range nor stood in position for it like you see boxers doing all the time. The first school I had years ago was shared with boxing and MT trainers. We had a ring and sparred together regularly in the evenings. Good times.

That what I do now train regularly with MT guys and boxing guys, so you can get your ranges right and adjust, etc.

[k gledhill]

Yes we know, he walks on water and turns water into wine.
Getting back to reality, what does he says his combat experience is?

Hah whatever : )

[KPM]

Oh no!. Just when I thought we were getting somewhere
There are correct and incorrect positions in chi sao.
The forms are where we learn VT concepts...not applications of techniques.
"How they are meant to be used"??.... So... say the movement on dummy where you turn tan, palm and kick, at the same time......are you telling me thats how that movement is meant to be used?.. Because that is what many might say is implied?

There might be many implications.. And different lineages argue over which is correct... I'm saying I don't care about the "implication"... Thats not why that move is in the form.

Anyway....Regardless of if a movement has an obvious application or not ... It is a mistake to take that implied application and train it 1:1.

Bear with me. We are getting somewhere. So how do you determine whether a movement is "correct" or not? Again, if a movement or technique can be correct or incorrect in the form, is it correct or incorrect in reference to what? And why is something repeated multiple times in a given form?

[LFJ]

I don't think you're feeding him the answer he's hungry for. What he seems to be asking is; since the fuk-sau for example can be correct or incorrect in the form, what attack is its correctness in reference to? What's the 1:1 application, in other words. Conceptual approach not computing...

[BPWT]

I think that maybe he's asking 'can you take something that is concept/principle based, and work it into a drill - perhaps even a 1:1 drill - in order to help correct, improve, make something happen as reflex'. (my words, not a direct quote)

So in LTWT we have this saying: When the head is pressed, the tail rises.

Usually it refers to one way Bong Sau is used by us. In this case, head being wrist, tail being the elbow. This motion appears in various drills, and if you wanted you could isolate this and train it specifically.

[Jansingsang]

[QUOTE=BPWT;1250229]I think that maybe he's asking 'can you take something that is concept/principle based, and work it into a drill - perhaps even a 1:1 drill - in order to help correct, improve, make something happen as reflex'. (my words, not a direct quote)




It seems everyone's knocking KPM on this one . I think its to do with how he explained it at one point in a scenario type situation Suppose i do this now what you gonna do ? whereas the concepts and principles from the forms can be isolated and practiced 1:1 but is not the be all end all answer to the equation

Hence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YKxtTNlOv8

And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPdl-mGKL-Y

[LFJ]

I think that maybe he's asking 'can you take something that is concept/principle based, and work it into a drill - perhaps even a 1:1 drill - in order to help correct, improve, make something happen as reflex'. (my words, not a direct quote)

So, can you take a conceptual approach and turn it into a technique approach? You can, many have, but a conditioned 1:1 response is what you'll be training. We try to avoid that.

As previously stated, structural errors are corrected first by the training forms and then in chi-sau/laap-sau drills and gwo-sau/sparring. If you are constantly failing at one stage you refer back to the previous. Everything should ultimately reference back to SNT.

We can concentrate chi-sau drills to work on certain things, but it is alive and not in a 1:1 fashion. I think the importance of wu-sau was the topic of PB's seminar Kevin hosted, but as you can see from his clips, it wasn't a 'how to use wu-sau in a 1:1' type of instruction.

[LFJ]

whereas the concepts and principles from the forms can be isolated and practiced 1:1 but is not the be all end all answer to the equation

Hence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YKxtTNlOv8

And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPdl-mGKL-Y

None of that has ever been trained in a 1:1 application drill in any WSLVT school I've been to. To communicate an idea or illustrate a point such an isolation may be made, but that's not a training method.

[Jansingsang]

None of that has ever been trained in a 1:1 application drill in any WSLVT school I've been to. To communicate an idea or illustrate a point such an isolation may be made, but that's not a training method.

Keep you knickers on mate It's a idea and can be isolated and practiced regardless still Agreed it's not practiced in the Wsl method this way thats done via forms and Chi soa like I said nothings the be all and end all of everything

[BPWT]

It seems everyone's knocking KPM on this one . I think its to do with how he explained it at one point in a scenario type situation Suppose i do this now what you gonna do ? whereas the concepts and principles from the forms can be isolated and practiced 1:1 but is not the be all end all answer to the equation

Hence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YKxtTNlOv8

And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPdl-mGKL-Y

Absolutely. It's not the be all and end all, just one training method in many. So we also train these things in Chi Sau, etc, too, much as LFJ has described. We just sometimes isolate a motion (1:1) as well - just to place emphasis on something particular... later it all gets incorporated into training that is not set/pre-arranged.

In some cases, this 1:1 approach can be useful if there's a fundamental problem. For example, I had a particular problem with lateral movement to my left side. No problem with my right side - my body just refused to move smoothly to the left (I'm no dancer, as my wife will tell you).

Rather than just try to correct this weirdness of mine during other training where multiple things are happening, and thus overload my dumbars*ness, my instructor got me working on some simple 1:1 movement drills with a partner until I could iron-out the problem.

[LFJ]

An example of a 1:1 application you'll never see us do. A bong-sau isolation drill against a jab, by Phil's group. Not even gonna comment on the circling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D1VtWeH1CM