Application Based vs. Non-Application Based Wing Chun

[LFJ]

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

If your choice is to use taan-sau, it'll probably end up failing like this guy's at 7:04.

He eats the punch in a slow and controlled demo where he asks for what punch he wants.

How do you think it's gonna work out for real??

And this is an entire video of nothing but ridiculous TWC applications, by the way. Worth a laugh.

[LFJ]

However if you think the taun is "punch training" and WC is about economy why not simply train punches by, punching???

VT punching is a kind that requires a particular training method different from that required for a jab, for example.

The Taun is a dispersing movement which molds when it meets incoming energy.

Not for me.

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".

I don't follow this method.

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.

It's correct for the system I train. You train something else entirely.

There can be no form without the ability to apply that form in application.

Nonsense.

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.

Actions improve mechanics and refine position. They are not to be taken and applied as techniques against xyz.

[LFJ]

What are "fighting behaviors"??

Already told you. For example, lat-sau-jik-chung / jeui ying bat jeui sau.

That you are still confused about this is sad.

[Sihing73]

I understand the WC punching method is different but you seem to be implying that all of the "techniques" are really just means of training the punch. If this is the case then why not just practice punching by punching??
I would be interested in some detailed explanation as some others have also stated that the Taun is really about training the punch but been unable or unwilling to explain exactly how that works. I mean does the Pak also train the punch, how about the Fook? Both utilize elbow energy. If not please explain the difference and why the taun is special. What I am saying is that you seem to be trying to call an apple and an orange the same thing, then again both are fruit.

I would be interested in your explanation of Taun, in a little bit of detail not just something like "that's not how I train it"

My example is that all energy should be trained to be forward. Chi Sau helps with this. When one encounters something coming in then if the incoming energy is less you continue forward. If the incoming energy is greater you accept and yield and let it mold your response. I would think that if you believe that the taun is punch training you should be able to grasp what I just said.

Please explain why your system has forms if not for teaching which can be directly translated into applications? Why not do only San Sik and no forms at all if the forms have no function for application?

I am also interested in why believing form should promote function is "nonsense".

I do not believe I have advocated learning response abc to attack xyz. However I am curious as to how you respond to attacks without using actions? Also curious if any of your response are also in the forms.

[LFJ]

If this is the case then why not just practice punching by punching??

Didn't you just ask that question?

I mean does the Pak also train the punch,

No.

how about the Fook?

Yes.

I would be interested in your explanation of Taun, in a little bit of detail not just something like "that's not how I train it"

It trains the elbow behavior of a punch.

When one encounters something coming in then if the incoming energy is less you continue forward. If the incoming energy is greater you accept and yield and let it mold your response. I would think that if you believe that the taun is punch training you should be able to grasp what I just said.

I know what you are describing, but I don't do WT. It's an entirely different approach to fighting.

Please explain why your system has forms if not for teaching which can be directly translated into applications?

Already did. The actions train mechanics and attributes, and introduce concepts, but are not to be misunderstood or applied directly as fighting techniques.

Why not do only San Sik and no forms at all if the forms have no function for application?

Training actions individually or strung together has nothing to do with application.

I am also interested in why believing form should promote function is "nonsense".

No one said that.

However I am curious as to how you respond to attacks without using actions?

?

Also curious if any of your response are also in the forms.

Our forms don't teach applications.

[Sihing73]

I can see that no real answers will be forthcoming,
i can only assume it is because the understanding is not there to discuss in detail, which could be on my part as well.

[zuti car]

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.

Explaination of this requirs time I do not have , neither I am willing to share what I do . Anyway , what you said here is one of the most basic ideas for beginners to help them grasp the basic foundation of the art , to understand the basic priciples . But I seldom use tan sao and not in a manner anyone else does .

[LFJ]

why not just practice punching by punching??

Why not do only San Sik and no forms at all if the forms have no function for application?

It sounds like you've laid claim to the forms and actions in them, and want me to take up your method, or stop using them.

A bit arrogant.

[Sihing73]

It sounds like you've laid claim to the forms and actions in them, and want me to take up your method, or stop using them.

A bit arrogant.

Seems like you are the arrogant one

I lay claim to nothing and certainly have no need or desire to impose my approach on others.

To be honest, I am getting older and really could care less if someone does not agree with me.
However, I am always willing and open to try and explain my views and approach.

Those who make broad bold statements implying that they have something others don,t but cannot or will not explain in detail are the ones I would consider not only misguided but arrogant.

[LFJ]

Those who make broad bold statements implying that they have something others don,t but cannot or will not explain in detail are the ones I would consider not only misguided but arrogant.

They are not broad bold statements. They describe the system I train which is not the system you train.

To tell me I'm wrong is broad, in that you're applying your interpretation to all systems, and bold in that you don't even train my system.

That comes off as pretty arrogant, but okay then.

I have answered your questions. What are you having trouble with?

[KPM]

If your choice is to use taan-sau, it'll probably end up failing like this guy's at 7:04.

He eats the punch in a slow and controlled demo where he asks for what punch he wants.

How do you think it's gonna work out for real??

And this is an entire video of nothing but ridiculous TWC applications, by the way. Worth a laugh.

You are deflecting and not answering the question. Why is that?

[Sihing73]

They are not broad bold statements. They describe the system I train which is not the system you train.

To tell me I'm wrong is broad, in that you're applying your interpretation to all systems, and bold in that you don't even train my system.

That comes off as pretty arrogant, but okay then.

I have answered your questions. What are you having trouble with?

Well, the most basic question I asked is why not just practice punching.
You have not replied with anything specific.

I accept that we do not train the same lineage. Still, there should be some basic common concepts.

You seem to prefer to tell others how they are wrong or can't make something work for real.
This is in spite of the fact that you also do not do their system so why is okay for you to tell someone they don't get it because they don't practice what you do but okay for you to tell people that actually train in a system they are wrong?
FWIW, Phil has been able to make what he shows work. Without going into too much detail, partly cause I do not know all the details and it is not my place, Phil has fought and trained fighters who have won fights. To imply that the system he teaches and has used is a total sham and will not work is.....................wait for it...................pretty arrogant.

I have been on the forum for a while now and while I do not always agree with everyone I would tend to think most would not find me or my approach "arrogant". However if you feel that is an apt description from you POV you are welcome to feel that way.

I train Wing Chun as well as Pekiti Tirsia, Malabar Silat and have dabbled in Hsing Yi. I am more than willing to post my lineage but that means little. Ultimately it is the person who defines the level of skill not the system trained.

What is the system you train again?

If you are willing to actually discuss your approach I am happy to do so. Does not mean I am right and you are wrong or vice versa if we do not agree. Who knows both of us may walk away with something of benefit.

If you do not want to discuss anything in detail that is also fine and your right.

[KPM]

Already told you. For example, lat-sau-jik-chung / jeui ying bat jeui sau.

That you are still confused about this is sad.

You are still deflecting and not answering questions. Why is that?

[LFJ]

You are deflecting and not answering the question. Why is that?

I don't do applications. It's kind of stupid to restate your question asking me for an application when I tell you this.

[LFJ]

Well, the most basic question I asked is why not just practice punching.
You have not replied with anything specific.

Elbow control for VT punching needs more isolated attention and systematic development than "just punching".

I accept that we do not train the same lineage. Still, there should be some basic common concepts.

Doesn't sound like there's much.

You seem to prefer to tell others how they are wrong or can't make something work for real.
This is in spite of the fact that you also do not do their system so why is okay for you to tell someone they don't get it because they don't practice what you do but okay for you to tell people that actually train in a system they are wrong?

I've only said someone is wrong when they are objectively wrong, like KPM saying Phil didn't take a direct sidestep.

If they say their forms are full of applications, I won't say that's wrong because mine aren't, which you did the reverse of, telling me I'm wrong in saying the actions in my forms shouldn't be given applications, just because yours are given applications.

I have expressed doubt about something being able to work for real, and haven't been shown that it does. So?

FWIW, Phil has been able to make what he shows work.

Maybe. That's what he says.

Without going into too much detail, partly cause I do not know all the details and it is not my place, Phil has fought and trained fighters who have won fights.

If you don't know the details, why say it? How do you know Phil's experience? I have never seen Phil fight or seen a fighting record of his. Not saying it isn't there, but I've only ever heard him say so.

I've seen his guys win fights, but not using anything in all the 100's of application videos they have.