I looked back, but I can't see where he answered this question about assuming a cover position in favour of the alternative... before receiving punches.
Of course.
No, not solely reactive - a preemptive motion is of course not truly reactive in that sense, I agree.
But why would a person use a defensive covering position in a preemptive way? You cover... to, well... cover. The cover is in reaction to something.
Why would you cover against something that has not happened. It's like saying there is a reaction to no action.
E.g. During a live football/soccer match, a goal keeper doesn't stand in an alert, ready position when his team have the ball at the other end of the pitch and are themselves trying to score.
I am not assuming anything but you are in assuming things should work a certain way and this was expressed in your comments and I was saying that it is not the same for everyone. How can you possibly know what is so called maximum effectiveness or how to achieve it? Are you able to do it?
The wing chun principles are not only guides you use to help you find out how to make things work for yourself. That will always be individual and level dependent.
On this forum disagreement seems to lead to name calling.
That's right you are free to use the art how you want just as they are and anyone is. I was explaining that just because you see things differently does not make them wrong or them right since in much of this there is no wrong or right since so much of it is individual. The bottom line are they making it work?Alan and his guys can operate and interpret wing chun concepts however they want. If they chose to start from a recovery timeframe guard, that's their choice and no skin off my nose. I used to box, and back then I held similar guards as they do now. And my personal experience tells me, that if I want to apply wing chun bia jong & jeet kiu concepts/strategies, that old closed off guard doesn't really support that. End of story.
What I do not understand is why people who cannot show that they are making what they do work and in many cases are not even trying think they can argue how they know better than someone who could beat them silly. It would be like me telling a pro boxer he's just doing things all wrong.
Or to put it another way, as JPinAZ did, why would someone use a BT emergency action if there was no emergency and they weren't in a bad/difficult position in the first place.
I think someone from the WSL line once said that BT is teaching you how to deal with things once they've gone wrong. So in that sense, you wouldn't want to put yourself in that position.
BPWT,
Your claims of sparring don't mesh with the questions you keep asking. Show us your sparring, then we can gauge what your level of skill is based on what we see. Until you do this you can't expect people who are successfully applying their system in pro MMA environments to take your views seriously. Again, I believe actions speak louder than words and you won't be so vocal when we critique your performance.
And before you say "but YOU don't fight in MMA, no I don't, but I certainly have sparred semi-pro and pro MMA guys, and did fine.
Preemptive means I do something before I need to react to what you are doing. I cover the opening or guard it then I have acted before your swing.
Here's what you are doing you are looking at this from some intellectual point of view and they are looking at it from a realistic point of view or a view based on experience. It is like asking a boxer why he lowers his hands in sparring and does not keep them in guard as that makes no sense because of this and that. He will tell you he does it because he has found from his training and from sparring and fighting that what he is doing works best for him.
You need to realize there is no right or best way in much of this. The test for what is right or best for you is called sparring.
If I understand you (your writing is not always that easy to understand, forgive me for saying it), you are saying you cover against punches before they come because you know they will come, and you would rather take a defensive position (hands by head) rather than a more proactive position.
I still do see why you would choose the first over the latter as a 'starting point.'
Okay, but it's pretty hard to have a conversation with someone if they are not aware of what's been said.
I am saying that in the scenario you give, you are taking a defensive action to deal with something that has not yet occurred - so I am asking why take that strategy when another would serve the same purpose but also put you in a better position to initiate an attack pre-emptively too? Remember, at the point we're talking about, nothing has yet happened.
In both cases, the guard is not static - it doesn't remain fixed - but the defensive method in question has more limitations. E.g. with both hands by your head your arms are compressed, they are there to cover and protect only, and they have been placed at the furtherest distance from their target.
Of course, it works as a defence - but I'm asking why choose the purely defensive method without having had a reaction that requires it.
My question is about our use of the system before and after an exchange starts.
So Alan's use of the covering position when in close and the when the punches are flying makes perfect sense to me, and the way he uses it is the way we'd use it too (in LTWT). But that's because the punches are already coming.
I agree - but I always thought Duncan Leung's emphasis was on covering on entering. No?
I don't know what you mean regarding the goal keeper Do you mean he should keep a ready position to guard the goal as though it was being attacked, even if the ball is at the other end of the pitch?
Yes, my lineage also doesn't see the 3rd form purely this way. I was just giving it as an example as some of the motions can be seen that way, and I think LFJ had earlier made reference to it related to covering.
They come from sparring.
I've already told you (third time now) that the people I spar with have no interest in recording themselves - and that I too couldn't care less about doing so either. I don't care, also, if you think I have good skill or no skill. I am asking a question about what you do - and you seem to not want to answer it.
I don't care if you or Alan take my views seriously. You can disagree with them all day long. I am asking you to explain to me why you do what you do. (specifically in relation to why your guys keep their hands in a covering position - in the sparring clip - when they have no stimuli to require it, and, IMO, Wing Chun has another alternative).
If there's a good reason, that's great - I'm just asking what it is, for f*ck's sake.
Not asking you to give me everyone's win/loss record - I am sure Alan's guys train hard and have success. I am trying to understand what is behind what they do.
You keep posting, but keep failing to answer the question I asked. Your guys might have a 1,000 win/0 loss record - great - you are still not answering the question I asked. If you don't want to, fine... but then why are you still posting responses to me.
Are you willing to answer this question in relation to the 'before' and 'after', or not?
Gotcha. Okay, but does he advocate covering when the opponent hasn't done anything?
Okay, I understand. So what I mean is, when the ball is at the other end of the pitch, you often see a goalie just standing by one of the posts. He's not in a 'ready' position, because the ball is so far away and in the hands of his team - so no immediate danger. If the other team get possession and come back down the pitch, attacking... then he gets his arse in gear.