Central Line Bong Sau vs. Center Line Bong Sau

[KPM]

In other words, there's no way to verify that you've applied blindside applications in quality full contact fights?

.

Is there any way to verify that your Wing Chun works in quality full contact fights?? Is there any video showing your "deep level", "non-application-based" WSLVT working in any kind of fight???

[KPM]

The new rumor is the William Cheung learned a Triad version of Wing Chun. The main point here is that I don't care where it comes from. It's been working for me. If yours works for you then I'm happy for you. I would never throw shade on what you do because it's different.

Very commendable attitude Phil and I agree with you. But that is certainly not true of LFJ and Guy B. As is apparent in this thread and has been proven time and again in the past.

Now one thing that occurs to me is that most good ring fighters will tell you that they have a small number (maybe 5 or 6) techniques or "applications" that they are very good at and that they use in nearly every fight as their "go to" moves. LFJ seems to use the term "application-based" in a derogatory fashion. But I see nothing wrong in a fighting method being rather simple and straight-forward. Its the "simple and straight-forward" that is going to work under pressure. He talks about WSLVT being "non-application" based and implies there is this deep theory behind its use that you can't see in video clips. To me that really doesn't sound like something that is going to work very well under pressure in a real fighting situation. But he declined to start and thread and discuss what he really means by it being "non-application" based. So its hard to say.

Personally, I see every Wing Chun version I have encountered as being a mix of application and theory/concept. The theory/concepts are what drives the understanding of various applications. They certainly have not been a "tit for tat"...."if you do this move I will always do X" kind of thing. But the minute you perform a technique to defend against what an opponent is doing, that becomes an "application." So I really don't understand what LFJ is on and on about.

[guy b.]

Very commendable attitude Phil and I agree with you. But that is certainly not true of LFJ and Guy B. As is apparent in this thread and has been proven time and again in the past.

Very happy for anyone else to do whatever they like. It is really only your constant trolling that brings these questions to the surface again and again. I personlly would not practice TWC because I disagree with the approach but I am sure there are many people for whom it is a good fit and I have no desire to argue with those people unless they wish to argue with me. You KPM are a person who wishes to argue a lot, you play silly political games trying to drag others into your 1-man crusade, and you go on forever, while never understanding anything that anyone tells you. It appears to offend you if people don't pat you on the head and tell you that you are great. I am sorry but I am not going to do that. But happy to leave you alone if you can manage to stop trolling.

He talks about WSLVT being "non-application" based and implies there is this deep theory behind its use that you can't see in video clips. To me that really doesn't sound like something that is going to work very well under pressure in a real fighting situation. But he declined to start and thread and discuss what he really means by it being "non-application" based. So its hard to say.

It has been discussed many times in great detail. This difference in approach appears to make you so angry that you can't shut up about it. All I can suggest to cure your problem is that you go and give VT a try. Then you will see how it works. This will be more productive that trolling about it on forums which just makes innocent people like Phil sad and people like me bored to tears.

Personally, I see every Wing Chun version I have encountered as being a mix of application and theory/concept. The theory/concepts are what drives the understanding of various applications. They certainly have not been a "tit for tat"...."if you do this move I will always do X" kind of thing. But the minute you perform a technique to defend against what an opponent is doing, that becomes an "application." So I really don't understand what LFJ is on and on about.

As above, there is only one way for you to understand. Up to you what you do about it.

[LFJ]

Is there any way to verify that your Wing Chun works in quality full contact fights?? Is there any video showing your "deep level", "non-application-based" WSLVT working in any kind of fight???

As I said, this deflection does not help your case. Go ahead and assume my stuff sucks and doesn't work.

Okay, now, where has this blindside application stuff TWC is all about ever worked?
It's almost all they ever talk about in all their application videos, but we never see it in their fights.

Just wondering...

LFJ seems to use the term "application-based" in a derogatory fashion.

Nothing derogatory about it. Most MA's work like that. I'm just saying it's pretty straightforward and easy to understand.

It's just that we often see the techniques of other application-based styles in action all the time.

Never seen TWC's blindside stuff work, though.

He talks about WSLVT being "non-application" based and implies there is this deep theory behind its use that you can't see in video clips. To me that really doesn't sound like something that is going to work very well under pressure in a real fighting situation.

Never said "deep". It's extremely simple. You are making an assessment from ignorance.

Personally, I see every Wing Chun version I have encountered as being a mix of application and theory/concept.

Realize you have not encountered all.

If it bothers you that much that you have to bring VT up in every conversation, do as Guy suggests and go find out about it, rather than cry about it on forums year after year.

[KPM]

You KPM are a person who wishes to argue a lot, you play silly political games trying to drag others into your 1-man crusade, and you go on forever, while never understanding anything that anyone tells you. It appears to offend you if people don't pat you on the head and tell you that you are great. I am sorry but I am not going to do that. But happy to leave you alone if you can manage to stop trolling.

.

Geez! Like I said before, you two are quite the pair! Batman and Robin! I wasn't the one that starting arguing on this thread. I am not the one that keeps trying to perpetuate the arguing. I've said multiple times you are free to think whatever you want, but you guys still come back with criticisms and negative comments about what someone else is doing. That's certainly not "trolling" on MY part!

[KPM]

Never said "deep". It's extremely simple. You are making an assessment from ignorance.


.

You called TWC "superficial". I can only assume that is because you consider what you do to be "deep" in contrast. But you won't discuss it, so who knows??

[LFJ]

You called TWC "superficial". I can only assume that is because you consider what you do to be "deep" in contrast.

It's an observation, not a comparison.

...As I told you last time you said this.

You are always trying to pit what I do against things to start some sort of pointless lineage war where there is none.

[Phil Redmond]

Just because you personally haven't seen blindside applications doesn't mean that the concept isn't valid. Also, you don't really know what we mean by blindside/side body/Pin San. You can be blindside on the inside. But you wouldn't know the nuances of it because you haven't been exposed to it. To the general public blindside could mean many things. The guy without the headgear is TWC, (btw, I don't prefer the acronym TWC because I feel all Wing Chun is traditional). When we fight we're not trying to look like a choreographed Yip Man movie. WSL won a fight using a knee and someone said that wasn't WC. He said he used the closest weapon to the closest target. He got what we call the blindside here. Now if you don't see it it's because you don't understand it. and I understand that you don't understand. I will say one thing. It would be great if you could share what you do with us so that we can all be better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXb7YXntv6E

[Phil Redmond]

This is a little example of what we attempt to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2o_7miDnTg

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . . . And what were they supposed to be doing?

The fact that you had to ask me that says a lot. Don't you recognize a jab, rear hand uppercut and hook? It was a repetitive drill to develop reflexes. It's like a musician playing scales over and over. Even pro musicians have to do it. Boxers/kick boxers, etc., do drills over and over as well. That's how you get better. Also, what is the point of your constant negativity? I presumed we were all adults here who can respectfully discuss things. At the present I don't feel the need to respond to any of your negativity anymore. It's not really worth my time. The funny thing is that when I've met people in person they are usually way different from their online personality. You're probably a cool guy in person. Who knows? Have a great day my Wing Chun brother.

[LFJ]

you don't really know what we mean by blindside/side body/Pin San. You can be blindside on the inside. But you wouldn't know the nuances of it because you haven't been exposed to it.

You make assumptions as easily as KPM.

The guy without the headgear is TWC,

I would not even show this video. The scared and defenseless opponent looks like he has never had a punch thrown at him before in his life. I would be ashamed to fight a guy like that.

This is a little example of what we attempt to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2o_7miDnTg

Yeah, I understand the strategy and tactics of TWC just fine. I just don't think it is realistic against an even decently skilled opponent, and I have only been shown drastic mismatches, or complete failures to apply this stuff.

The fact that you had to ask me that says a lot.

I ask because the defender is just moving straight back and swatting at every punch. Is that what he's supposed to do?

Don't you recognize a jab, rear hand uppercut and hook? It was a repetitive drill to develop reflexes.

If it was just to show punches, I'm not sure what your point is in showing the video.

Also, what is the point of your constant negativity?

I'm just interested in seeing TWC's strategy actually work against anyone who also knows how to fight.

It should be positive. This can only be taken negatively if it in fact doesn't work, or at least there's no video of it.

Thanks for trying, though.

[Happy Tiger]

YM never had anything to do with TWC. Cheung quite obviously invented the style, copying superficial bits and pieces from others.



Come on, you're just making sh!t up now.

this just don't follow what we now know of VT history.

[LFJ]

this just don't follow what I now know of VT history.

I think that's what you meant to say.

[guy b.]

Here's a karate style that focuses on blind side attacks. They make it work by use of the gi to hold the opponent where they want them. Even then it happens infrequently in their tournaments with evenly matched competitors and mostly it looks like regular knockdown karate. By contrast TWC looks nowhere near as robust and practical.

Highlights

[guy b.]

Actual match