Application Based vs. Non-Application Based Wing Chun

[KPM]

What you do not understand is the fact that a style can be based on principles and those principles can be expressed and trained through applications ,these two things do not exclude eachother , take 99% of kung fu for example .

No, no Zuti! I understand that perfectly well! I essentially said the same thing in my original post! I noted that the concepts/principles are what drive the applications. How can you have a martial art without any application???? But that is what the WSLVT guys have implied in the past. That is why I never understood what they were getting at because it never made sense. They have even said in the past that there are no applications in any of their forms. Its all just concepts.

So it seems to me that there is a spectrum between applications on one side and concepts on the other. Some versions of Wing Chun may lean towards the application side and some may lean towards the concept side. But I just don't see how anyone could think that Wing Chun could have one without the other!

[zuti car]

No, no Zuti! I understand that perfectly well! I essentially said the same thing in my original post! I noted that the concepts/principles are what drive the applications. How can you have a martial art without any application???? But that is what the WSLVT guys have implied in the past. That is why I never understood what they were getting at because it never made sense. They have even said in the past that there are no applications in any of their forms. Its all just concepts.

So it seems to me that there is a spectrum between applications on one side and concepts on the other. Some versions of Wing Chun may lean towards the application side and some may lean towards the concept side. But I just don't see how anyone could think that Wing Chun could have one without the other!

I have no applications , unless punch is the face is considered application . What most people consider as appication is what William Cheung ,Leung Ting and most of the others are teaching , a set of prederminated movements that should be meorized and practiced as a response to given attack. That is the reason why that "applications" do not work in a real fight and you can see one thing taught and practiced in a school and something totally different used in fights . Cheung is teaching blind side concept and 3 or more blocks on one punch , yet you can never see his students (nor himself) ever used that in a fight\sparring , when they fight , they cannot pull out any application they learned and practiced so hard and they are basically doing some kind of kick boxing. In essence , they are practicing two different, let's say sports, I cannot say TWC is a martial art . Now question is , why someone practice two martial arts and believe he is parcticing one , when it is so obvious that applications and what is done in a figth\sparring are two totally different things . I just want to add , I don't know what wsl gys are doing so i canno comment , but I did practice WT and TWC so I am very well awared what is going on there .

[KPM]

I have no applications , unless punch is the face is considered application . What most people consider as appication is what William Cheung ,Leung Ting and most of the others are teaching , a set of prederminated movements that should be meorized and practiced as a response to given attack. That is the reason why that "applications" do not work in a real fight and you can see one thing taught and practiced in a school and something totally different used in fights . Cheung is teaching blind side concept and 3 or more blocks on one punch , yet you can never see his students (nor himself) ever used that in a fight\sparring , when they fight , they cannot pull out any application they learned and practiced so hard and they are basically doing some kind of kick boxing. In essence , they are practicing two different, let's say sports, I cannot say TWC is a martial art . Now question is , why someone practice two martial arts and believe he is parcticing one , when it is so obvious that applications and what is done in a figth\sparring are two totally different things . I just want to add , I don't know what wsl gys are doing so i canno comment , but I did practice WT and TWC so I am very well awared what is going on there .

Ok. But if you do not learn that a Tan Sau can defend the upper outer gate against an incoming strike and do not learn to do that specifically (which is to say, that is how it is applied) then how do you teach someone the use of a Tan Sau? Just as an example.

[Sihing73]

What most people consider as appication is what William Cheung ,Leung Ting and most of the others are teaching , a set of prederminated movements that should be meorized and practiced as a response to given attack. That is the reason why that "applications" do not work in a real fight and you can see one thing taught and practiced in a school and something totally different used in fights . but I did practice WT and TWC so I am very well awared what is going on there .

Zuti,

I would disagree with your assertion that LT teaches applications and specific responses for specific attacks. Unless you are referring to the Lat Sau program or the sections of chi sau which in the beginning would teach responses but the goal is to make responses based on the energy given not a specific attack. If you do not agree then consider what happens after you learn the program and then flow freely. If you stick to a specific response to speific attacks, then you have not achieved much of a level in this system, imho.

One of the examples I like to use over the years is the alphabet. When starting out one must learn and practice the letters and then building into words, sentences, paragraphs etc. It is possible to know the letters and yet be unable to write anything worth reading. However, if you not only learn the letters but also understand the structure of sentences, etc, then you can take those 26 letters of the English-American alphabet and create literary masterpieces. Of course there are also those who learn the same thing but couldn't write a sentence coherently.

Those able to write understand and master the "concepts" those who have trouble writing a grocery list have gotten the "technique" and "application". Perhaps they can write enough to get by on a daily basis but certainly have insufficient skill to impart that knowledge to a broad audience. Does that make any sense??

When discussing concept and application based consider that many Okinawan Masters were known to be able to pick up a weapon they had never seen before and wield it like the master they were. This was not based on application but an understanding of the concept behind using weapons. This could be one reason there are long range, short range, double and flexible weapon categories. If you understand the concept of how to use one type then you can more easily use that type even if the specific weapon may be unfamiliar.

FWIW, I trained in LT WT as well as some other lineages. I have also done some sparse training int TWC with Joe Grepo in NJ, certainly not enough to say I know anything of that system in depth. I have also, through working in Law Enforcement, had the need to utilize things I was taught in real life encounters which were not friendly. I can say that my knowledge worked for me so I would tend to disagree with your assertion that what is taught by those mentioned does not work. However, I would agree that trying to memorize a bunch of techniques to use against specific attacks does not work. But, that is not what LT taught, at least not while I was training under this system.

[Sihing73]

Morning,

Just to provide some more perspective of where I am coming from:

For most situations I would postulate (big words in the morning make me feel smart )

The following WC techniques are enough to deal with the majority of situations:

Taun Da
Pak Da
Gaun Da

There are of course exceptions which would not fit so neatly into the above but for the most part if you really understand those three "techniques" and understand them and learn them you would have a fairly decent result in most situations.

Now here is where it gets interesting. Take Taun for example; some will argue that there are up to three different types of Taun. One for upper level, one for lower level and one for mid level attacks. If you train this way then you are using "application" or "technique" based training, imo. You learn a variation of each Taun to use depending on where the attack is coming from or where it enters you gates.

I always liked to say there is only one Taun and it varies depending on how it is needed. Sometimes this is easy to say but harder to explain in words. But, my feeling is that by learning "one" Taun and varying it depending on what is given trains the concept rather than the application. By understanding the idea or concept of the Taun it can be used regardless of where the attack comes from because it never changes but molds itself to the energy it encounters. Thus I do not care if you try to punch me high, low or whatever. Now if the attack goes outside of the area which can be comfortably covered by the Taun seed or shape then it will change to something else.

Think of an art like Hsing Yi which has 5 major fist movements yet countless variations. To me again this is about energy. If you understand you can adapt and deal with anything your opponent throws at you. You cannot do that if you learn "technique" or "application" alone. I once heard of a Hsing Yi master who demonstrated each of the Five Fists against a variety of attacks. The opponent attacked this master using various different attacks and the master would respond using only one of the Five Fists for each very different attack. He did this to show that if you understand each Fist the "concept" behind that Fist could be utilized even outside what may be considered standard "application".

I remember seeing Leung Ting at a seminar many years ago. He told us that you could not fight from a low stance, it was impractical. He then got into a low stance and defended against various attacks. This showed me that you can, if you understand, make even a less than ideal situation work for you. Of course, if you train based on learning a set of responses to a set of attacks you would not be able to do this or understand it.

Back to work now.
Enjoy your day.

[guy b.]

Ok. But if you do not learn that a Tan Sau can defend the upper outer gate against an incoming strike and do not learn to do that specifically (which is to say, that is how it is applied) then how do you teach someone the use of a Tan Sau? Just as an example.

Tan Sau is not a block. As such "use" of a Tan Sau as an application to block strikes to the xyz gate is error

[KPM]

I always liked to say there is only one Taun and it varies depending on how it is needed. Sometimes this is easy to say but harder to explain in words. But, my feeling is that by learning "one" Taun and varying it depending on what is given trains the concept rather than the application. By understanding the idea or concept of the Taun it can be used regardless of where the attack comes from because it never changes but molds itself to the energy it encounters. Thus I do not care if you try to punch me high, low or whatever. Now if the attack goes outside of the area which can be comfortably covered by the Taun seed or shape then it will change to something else.



.

I agree with you Dave. When you understand the concept behind the Tan Sau, you can use it or "apply" it in a variety of ways. You aren't memorizing a "tit for tat" kind of exchange. You just understand how a Tan is meant to function! But the minute you actually use the Tan in the way it was intended, THAT is an "application." And this is why I have always found the explanations of why WSLVT is "non-application based" and "has no applications" as being unsatisfactory. How do you have a martial art that you don't "apply"??? You example of the WT Lat Sau program is another good one. It may seem like the student is memorizing a string of specific moves for a specific situation, but they are expected to go beyond that and use it as a way of developing an understanding of how how those moves are meant to work. Once you have that, then you can "apply" them in a free-flowing format. That is what Chi Sau is for....to be able to use or "apply" things in a flowing non-predetermined way.

So if you look at videos of various styles showing what they do, they can't help but stage it as a given technique defending against a specific attack. So it looks like they are just doing "applications." What you don't see is the principles and concepts driving how they are using that particular technique. Its not just a "self-defense move", like memorizing a series of escapes from an arm-grab in a short self-defense class.

[KPM]

Tan Sau is not a block. As such "use" of a Tan Sau as an application to block strikes to the xyz gate is error

Ok. So a wide hard swinging blow is coming in at your upper outer gate. What do you do?

[LFJ]

I noted that the concepts/principles are what drive the applications. How can you have a martial art without any application???? But that is what the WSLVT guys have implied in the past. That is why I never understood what they were getting at because it never made sense. They have even said in the past that there are no applications in any of their forms. Its all just concepts.

Concepts and principles drive fighting behaviors, not which techniques to use against which kind of attacks.

Actions in the forms should not be given applications. That's not what they're for.

Ok. But if you do not learn that a Tan Sau can defend the upper outer gate against an incoming strike and do not learn to do that specifically (which is to say, that is how it is applied) then how do you teach someone the use of a Tan Sau? Just as an example.

You don't. Taan-sau is a tool for punch training. It isn't used as a block in fighting.

[Sihing73]

Ok. So a wide hard swinging blow is coming in at your upper outer gate. What do you do?

In that situation I probably would not use a Taun.
Possible a Biu or even a Bong depending on where it was aimed.
But the danger of trying to use a Taun is if you are too close the arm will hook around you and hit you anyhow.

Regardless you should, imo, be stepping into the opponent and perhaps jamming his shoulder.

Of course there are so many vairables it is pretty hard to say what one would do.

[LFJ]

Ok. So a wide hard swinging blow is coming in at your upper outer gate. What do you do?

You're asking him to play your application game, after you've been told VT doesn't work like that?

[KPM]

You're asking him to play your application game, after you've been told VT doesn't work like that?

Its not a hard question. You are walking down the street and suddenly see a punch whipping toward your head. What do you do?

[Sihing73]

Concepts and principles drive fighting behaviors, not which techniques to use against which kind of attacks.

Actions in the forms should not be given applications. That's not what they're for.



You don't. Taan-sau is a tool for punch training. It isn't used as a block in fighting.

I would agree that WC, in general does not block.
However if you think the taun is "punch training" and WC is about economy why not simply train punches by, punching???
Everything is not a punch and everything is not a block.

The Taun is a dispersing movement which molds when it meets incoming energy.
If the energy coming in is greater than the elbow force projecting forward then the Taun will accept that energy and parry it. If the incoming energy is less then the Taun can continue forward and become a strike. However, this is not the same as "punch training".

While the forms train many things like structure and the seeds of the system, Taun, Fook, Bong for example. To may such a broad statement as: "Actions in the forms should not be given applications. That's not what they're for." is, imho, wrong. There can be no form without the ability to apply that form in application.

However, I am open to hearing an explanation of what you mean when you say actions in the forms should not be given applications. That's not what they're for.

[KPM]

In that situation I probably would not use a Taun.
Possible a Biu or even a Bong depending on where it was aimed.
But the danger of trying to use a Taun is if you are too close the arm will hook around you and hit you anyhow.

Regardless you should, imo, be stepping into the opponent and perhaps jamming his shoulder.

Of course there are so many vairables it is pretty hard to say what one would do.

Now see, that's a good answer!!!

[KPM]

Concepts and principles drive fighting behaviors, not which techniques to use against which kind of attacks.

Actions in the forms should not be given applications. That's not what they're for.



You don't. Taan-sau is a tool for punch training. It isn't used as a block in fighting.

What are "fighting behaviors"??