Questions for Graham

[LaRoux]

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

Yeah, who would think that kind drill is any good? It is also the kind of 1:1 application drill you will find in BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and MMA and they are clearly wasting their time doing that. BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and MMA also circle/move laterally, but clearly that must be a waste of time also.

Somehow I think Phil's approach is light years ahead of yours.

[LFJ]

It is also the kind of 1:1 application drill you will find in BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and MMA and they are clearly wasting their time doing that. BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and MMA also circle/move laterally, but clearly that must be a waste of time also.

That's great. None of those are Wing Chun though, but neither is bong-sau in an isolation drill against a jab while circling around the opponent...

Some more form application nonsense. Instead of 1:1 application though, it's 4:1. But in reality it'd be more like 0:2, at least.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s37CCiz0EuA

Somehow I think Phil's approach is light years ahead of yours.

Somehow I think Kevin is right when he says you know nothing about VT.

[KPM]

[QUOTE=Jansingsang;1250233]

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

Yeah. Both of you are basically right. Maybe it was my mistake to explain it as a "if I do this, you do that" kind of scenario. But that wasn't to imply that's the ONLY way to train. I realize that this can get you motorset to a single conditioned response where we want to remain fluid. That's why you limit this kind of training and immediately put it back into something more "alive" like Chi Sau or free sparring. What I don't understand is why anyone would object to isolating something for better development in their training. Its just good modern Sports Science, like I've said. To me, and no slight intended here, if you aren't doing "isolation training" to refine and develop a specific technique or skill, then you may be missing out on some important training.

But what I was really trying to get at without inciting another flame war, was that I completely understand the idea of things being "conceptual." I approach Wing Chun the same way. But like PBWT pointed out, those concepts are expressed physically in the form of techniques. Those techniques have certain intended applications that fit with the concept behind them. There is a right and a wrong way to do them in the forms or in practice for a reason. That reason is only partially related to the abstract "concept" behind them. To me, a bigger reason to do them a certain way is because that's how they were designed to work optimally in a given physical situation.....1:1. So I have had a hard time understanding the objection here to the whole idea of anything being "1:1." So to say that a given movement in the forms (like pivoting between Bong and Lan in Chum Kiu) is not intended to have any application but it is only for training the body mechanics makes no sense to me. I could train the same body mechanics doing the lousiest Bong and Lan around. I could train the same body mechanics pivoting between a punch and a Gan Sau. Now, to avoid misunderstanding, that's NOT to say that there is ONE and only ONE fixed application for techniques in the form. Things are still conceptually based. But the concept needs physical "definition" and expression.

And again, no offense intended, but to say you are prepared for a fight against anyone without doing any "isolation" training against the most common things you might see from .....say a street brawler with some boxing or grappling know how seems a little short-sighted. Sure, Wing Chun is designed conceptually to deal with anything. I get that. But even Yip Man encouraged his young guys to go out the "pressure test" their Wing Chun. Wong Shun Leung is famous for this. We can't exactly do that today, but we can spar with people from other systems and we can practice against partners using techniques from other systems. That's what I mean by "1:1, isolation training."

[KPM]

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

Yeah, I wouldn't do a Bong Sau as "primary" defense like that. But maybe a Pak Sau. But how will I know if my Pak Sau will work well against a boxer's jab if I've never trained it that way?

[LFJ]

But how will I know if my Pak Sau will work well against a boxer's jab if I've never trained it that way?

Spar with them.

[KPM]

Spar with them.

Absolutely! And if its a friendly session and you found your Pak Sau wasn't working so well against his jab, why wouldn't you say..."hey buddy, feed me a few of those jabs over and over so I can work on this and get it right!" That's "isolation training" in a 1:1 format.

[LFJ]

why wouldn't you say..."hey buddy, feed me a few of those jabs over and over so I can work on this and get it right!" That's "isolation training" in a 1:1 format.

Because I don't use paak-sau like that.

[LaRoux]

That's great. None of those are Wing Chun though, but neither is bong-sau in an isolation drill against a jab while circling around the opponent...

And that's exactly the reason that so many WC people can't fight worth beans. They are too concerned about "it's not WC" so we don't use it". Who cares if drilling against a jab while circling around the opponent is WC or not. If it works, it works.

Somehow I think Kevin is right when he says you know nothing about VT.

I never claimed to know that much about VT. What I do know is what works vs. what doesn't work against opponents in full-contact settings.

[LFJ]

And that's exactly the reason that so many WC people can't fight worth beans. They are too concerned about "it's not WC" so we don't use it". Who cares if drilling against a jab while circling around the opponent is WC or not. If it works, it works.


I never claimed to know that much about VT. What I do know is what works vs. what doesn't work against opponents in full-contact settings.

That it isn't WC is not the point. The point is precisely that it won't work, which is why it isn't WC, or at least not WSLVT!

Think you're gonna bong-sau this or even paak-sau as KPM says? Be my guest. You will become a headless troll. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZ2I...ature=youtu.be

[k gledhill]

Yeah, who would think that kind drill is any good? It is also the kind of 1:1 application drill you will find in BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and MMA and they are clearly wasting their time doing that. BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and MMA also circle/move laterally, but clearly that must be a waste of time also.

Somehow I think Phil's approach is light years ahead of yours.

Ah so if everybody does it vt should , brilliant deduction : ) lmao

[LFJ]

Some more form application nonsense. Instead of 1:1 application though, it's 4:1. But in reality it'd be more like 0:2, at least.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s37CCiz0EuA

I should add this clip here too, just cuz...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZ2I...ature=youtu.be

[LaRoux]

Ah so if everybody does it vt should , brilliant deduction : ) lmao

The less than brilliant deduction is rejecting a drill out of hand simply because one thinks it is "not WC".

[LFJ]

The less than brilliant deduction is rejecting a drill out of hand simply because one thinks it is "not WC".

That wasn't the point. "It is not WC" is a nice way of saying we don't do that stupid sh!t because it won't work against real punches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZ2I...ature=youtu.be

[BPWT]

I should add this clip here too, just cuz...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZ2I...ature=youtu.be

It's a good clip. But this is not how most of us use, say, Pak Sau.

[LFJ]

It's a good clip. But this is not how most of us use, say, Pak Sau.

I would hope not, but thinking you're gonna do 4 things to the first jab like Phil shows or use a bong-sau... ...