Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 157

Thread: Application Based vs. Non-Application Based Wing Chun

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662

    Application Based vs. Non-Application Based Wing Chun

    This distinction is still not clear to me. It has been said that WSLVT is "non-application based" method compared to just about everything else that IS "application based." It has been said that you cannot watch a video of WSLVT/PB and understanding what is happening if you don't study the system because you cannot see this "non-application" Wing Chun in action. That just seems strange to me.

    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. So 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. Saying that a fighting method is "non-application" based just seems rather abstract to me. It doesn't really doesn't sound like something that is going to work very well under pressure in a real fighting situation.

    Every Wing Chun method that I have studied or encountered seemed to be 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 instant you perform a technique to defend against what an opponent is doing, that becomes an "application." So I really don't understand what a "non-application based" Wing Chun means.

    Anyone care to elucidate?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Dahlonega, GA USA
    Posts
    1,592
    Well to me it is about dealing with the energy rather than the "technigue" per se. When one applies concepts instead oc fixed "applications" you react to what is given. For example, using concepts to deal with an attack often will result in doing something different even though the attacks look tge same. The difference is the energy being provided which will dictate the response. If you allow the energy received to form the response it will never be application based because each attack will form it's own defensive response.
    You can see this illustrated in many FMA with the idea of covering using angles. Everything cominv from one angle is responded to with a specific response. In the beginning this appears to be application based. However ic you delve deeper you begin to see it is not the application that is important but the idea of covering
    Peace,

    Dave

    http://www.sifuchowwingchun.com
    Wherever my opponent stands--they are in my space

  3. #3
    Application, to me, is kinda like 'suggested serving' on a pre package food.
    "Wing Chun is a bell that appears when rung.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tainan ,Taiwan
    Posts
    388
    It is very simple , if the system uses prearranged set of movements as an answer to incoming attack , and have drills that do the same it is application based system . Sadly (99% of all kung fu is application based ) . If the system works on developing reflexes and keeping the structre through sparring and drils ,it is not application based .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    "if you do this move I will always do X" ...
    Since I'll always attack first, I only train, "When I do this, if you respond as ..., I'll do ...". My MA training is 100% application base.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    This distinction is still not clear to me.
    The sad thing? You've started similar threads years ago to have this explained to you by at least 5 people.

    You didn't get it then, and still don't now.

    If it bothers you that much and you are interested enough to keep coming back to this topic year after year, just go to a VT school already and find out about it!

    Otherwise just give up.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Sihing73 View Post
    Well to me it is about dealing with the energy rather than the "technigue" per se. When one applies concepts instead oc fixed "applications" you react to what is given. For example, using concepts to deal with an attack often will result in doing something different even though the attacks look tge same. The difference is the energy being provided which will dictate the response. If you allow the energy received to form the response it will never be application based because each attack will form it's own defensive response.
    You can see this illustrated in many FMA with the idea of covering using angles. Everything cominv from one angle is responded to with a specific response. In the beginning this appears to be application based. However ic you delve deeper you begin to see it is not the application that is important but the idea of covering
    Nice write up Dave

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Sihing73 View Post
    Well to me it is about dealing with the energy rather than the "technigue" per se. When one applies concepts instead oc fixed "applications" you react to what is given. For example, using concepts to deal with an attack often will result in doing something different even though the attacks look tge same. The difference is the energy being provided which will dictate the response. If you allow the energy received to form the response it will never be application based because each attack will form it's own defensive response.
    You can see this illustrated in many FMA with the idea of covering using angles. Everything cominv from one angle is responded to with a specific response. In the beginning this appears to be application based. However ic you delve deeper you begin to see it is not the application that is important but the idea of covering
    I agree with you Dave. That's what I meant by the theories and concepts informing and driving the applications rather than it being a "tit for tat" kind of thing. But this has been true for every version of Wing Chun I have studied. Hence why I don't understand the distinction that some try to make by saying something is "non-application based."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by zuti car View Post
    It is very simple , if the system uses prearranged set of movements as an answer to incoming attack , and have drills that do the same it is application based system . Sadly (99% of all kung fu is application based ) . If the system works on developing reflexes and keeping the structre through sparring and drils ,it is not application based .

    So you are saying you study a version of Wing Chun that doesn't drill techniques? Do you know of versions of Wing Chun that don't work on developing reflexes and keeping structure?


    Pin Sun Wing Chun probably comes the closest to what you are describing. It doesn't use the standard 3 forms, but instead organizes the curriculum in a series of short forms or "San Sik" of around 3 moves each. These San Sik are practiced solo, on the dummy, and as a two-man drill with a partner and eventually in Chi Sau. The two-man drills are meant to really drive home how the technique or concept in the San Sik is applied or used. It is an efficient and quick way to teach a student all the basics. But this does not mean that Pin Sun doesn't also have underlying overall theories and concepts that inform and drive the techniques. It doesn't mean that when Pin Sun sees a given attack coming that it is always going to do X technique in response. Pin Sun uses the two man drills and Chi Sau to develop reflexes and good structure and also does sparring. I'm told the local Ku Lo Pin Sun schools in Shaping China regularly win the sparring tournaments in the area. So even though the beginning levels are very "application heavy" compared to other versions of Wing Chun, I don't think I would call even Pin Sun "application-based" Wing Chun.

    I just don't see a very clear distinction between "application-based" and "non-application based." Maybe a lot of Chinese Martial Arts other than Wing Chun fit into the "application-based" category more clearly?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    The sad thing? You've started similar threads years ago to have this explained to you by at least 5 people.

    You didn't get it then, and still don't now.

    If it bothers you that much and you are interested enough to keep coming back to this topic year after year, just go to a VT school already and find out about it!

    Otherwise just give up.

    Trying to turn this into an argument already? Why not just try and participate in a fruitful discussion? I don't think the topic has ever been explained very well. It is still unclear to me. I'm guessing it isn't all that clear to others as well. So I started this thread in the interest of trying to figure it out better. If your answer is always going to be "just go and study WSLVT if you really want to know"....then as I said in the other thread....it seems to be becoming clear that you really aren't here to share what you know about Wing Chun or learn from others. You seem to only be here to criticize and tear down others.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    I have never been a fan of "If they do this, you do that" or things of that nature.
    Seems always to REACTIVE and not enough PROACTIVE.
    In grappling, because the pace is "slower", "sensing" and "feeling" the opponent and even "waiting" for the opponent to commit is a viable option.
    Not so much in striking when fists and feet are coming at you at 40MPH.
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    It doesn't mean that when Pin Sun sees a given attack coming that it is always going to do X technique in response.
    Having more than one technique to apply against a given attack doesn't make it non-application based.

    It means you have even more possible application ideas for one given attack.

    This is a reactive approach. A non-application based method is lat-sau-jik-chung / jeui ying bat jeui sau.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    I have never been a fan of "If they do this, you do that" or things of that nature.
    Seems always to REACTIVE and not enough PROACTIVE.
    In grappling, because the pace is "slower", "sensing" and "feeling" the opponent and even "waiting" for the opponent to commit is a viable option.
    Not so much in striking when fists and feet are coming at you at 40MPH.
    Yes. ......

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    jeui ying bat jeui sau.
    Ok...gotta ask
    Could you please translate (?)
    Thanks in advance!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by wckf92 View Post
    Ok...gotta ask
    Could you please translate (?)
    Thanks in advance!
    Chase center. Don't chase arms.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •