VT ideas at longer range

[LFJ]

There is no such thing as "short" "medium" or "long" range.

This is only contact and non contact.

Pretty much.

I can contact a boxer with kicks where he can't reach me, yet boxing has long-range and VT doesn't?

[Frost]

Pretty much.

I can contact a boxer with kicks where he can't reach me, yet boxing has long-range and VT doesn't?

yes he can reach you, he has a thing thing called footwork which allows him to get into the distance he wants to

and he does have a long and short range game its just build around the sports requirements and limitations

Why am i bothering you already have all the answers to your own question they are rhetorical you just like to sound off with Guy and you cant do it on the other forum so here you are !

[LFJ]

yes he can reach you, he has a thing thing called footwork which allows him to get into the distance he wants to

Did I say a boxer can never reach me? No.

I said I can reach him with kicks at a distance where he can't reach me without leaping forward.

Unless someone has arms longer than my legs...

and he does have a long and short range game its just build around the sports requirements and limitations

Exactly my point. It doesn't consider dangers of a kicking opponent, and is not allowed to kick.
So, its tools at "long-range" are limited to arms' length punches, and lunging/leaping punches to extend a bit further.

It doesn't have long-range weapons like kicks, as VT does. Not a problem for the sport. But, it's silly/ignorant to say boxing has long-range while VT doesn't.

Why am i bothering you already have all the answers to your own question they are rhetorical you just like to sound off with Guy and you cant do it on the other forum so here you are !

Been posting on here for years, long before ever going to that forum.
I'm also not banned there, and have been quite active on the current threads.

[Sihing73]

Pretty much.

I can contact a boxer with kicks where he can't reach me, yet boxing has long-range and VT doesn't?

So, you are either in contact range or not...........whether someone or a specific art trains a particular attribute does not change the "range". If a boxer decided to incorporate kicking he would have the same options of being in a position where he has the ability to make or contact or not. Really does not matter what someone trains if they can't reach you.

I find it kind of amusing that for someone who states that there are no "techniques/applications" in their approach to VT/WC/WT and that everything is really just a punch (Taun is a method of punching according to your past posts) that you are comfortable with dividing contact into various ranges. Would seem the simple approach would be to accept there is contact and non contact. Less chance of muddying the waters. Of course there can be variations of said contact but when you focus on a specific subset such as long or short etc, you really limit your responses. In a sense you can get tunnel vision and rather than simply flowing with what is given waste time trying to fit something into your understanding of range.

Bottom line is that if I can reach you and make contact my WC/WT/VT can work. If I can't reach you or make contact then it really doesn't matter since all I can do is punch or kick air.

[LFJ]

I find it kind of amusing that for someone who states that there are no "techniques/applications" in their approach to VT/WC/WT and that everything is really just a punch (Taun is a method of punching according to your past posts) that you are comfortable with dividing contact into various ranges.

Is a kick really just a punch?

Would seem the simple approach would be to accept there is contact and non contact.

I agree with you here. These range terms were applied by KPM because he knows more about boxing than VT.

VT deals with pre-contact and contact range. But, I speak in his terms on the topic because he believes VT can't make contact without being in what he calls "chi-sau range", so to him anything more extended, yet still able to make contact is "long-range" and his WC doesn't have it.

[Sihing73]

Is a kick really just a punch?

I agree with you here. These range terms were applied by KPM because he knows more about boxing than VT.

VT deals with pre-contact and contact range. But, I speak in his terms on the topic because he believes VT can't make contact without being in what he calls "chi-sau range", so to him anything more extended, yet still able to make contact is "long-range" and his WC doesn't have it.

I understand your confusion, allow me to help you out here.

Read my post and I think you will see the context was explained to be using Taun as an example.
Kind of like how you guys keep saying there are no applications or techniques yet you train the same things as the rest of the WC/VT/WT world. Just that to you every movement, since there are no "techniques" is really "punch training". So using your mindset I wonder what trains the kicking and whether they are techniques too or some weird method of squating into your opponent.

For clarification, in my approach every kick is actually a step. It just happens that sometimes I step into or onto my opponent.

I guess you really are obsessed with KPM. That can be a dangerous thing as your reactions are kind of dictated on your perception of what you "think" he would say. In a way that gives KPM a lot of power and influence over you and your posts. It might be better to simply discuss the topic at hand and not worry about what you believe someone else may think but instead to say what you believe to be the case.

Just saying.........................

[LFJ]

I understand your confusion, allow me to help you out here.

Read my post and I think you will see the context was explained to be using Taun as an example.
Kind of like how you guys keep saying there are no applications or techniques yet you train the same things as the rest of the WC/VT/WT world. Just that to you every movement, since there are no "techniques" is really "punch training". So using your mindset I wonder what trains the kicking and whether they are techniques too or some weird method of squating into your opponent.

WTF are you on about?

I guess you really are obsessed with KPM. That can be a dangerous thing as your reactions are kind of dictated on your perception of what you "think" he would say. In a way that gives KPM a lot of power and influence over you and your posts. It might be better to simply discuss the topic at hand and not worry about what you believe someone else may think but instead to say what you believe to be the case.

Just saying.........................

So, you edit your post to take out the part that says KPM didn't even post in this thread, after you realize you're wrong, yet leave this BS about me thinking of him and imagining what he'd say??

[Sihing73]

WTF are you on about?


So, you edit your post to take out the part that says KPM didn't even post in this thread, after you realize you're wrong, yet leave this BS about me thinking of him and imagining what he'd say??

What exactly is the part giving you trouble??
You made a reference to a Kick being a Punch (??) with the implication that I had confused or did not understand the difference between a kick and a punch.
I explained my point of reference using things you posted in the past.
Given your posting method I thought you would be able to grasp what I was saying.
I am afraid I am unsure of how to explain this so you can understand better.

as to KPM my point is that you, and Guy B, seem to be obsessed with KPM and TWC. You go out of your way to speak poorly about both every chance you get. You also tell people that they do not understand your VT and need to experience it themselves in person in order to be able to understand. Which can be a valid point. However, you then make assumptions about how others train, what they believe and their level of knowledge without the empirical evidence to support your claims.

You question someones actual experience but offer nothing to support your approach being better. You ask for video evidence yet have nothing of your own to post, for example.

[LFJ]

You made a reference to a Kick being a Punch (??) with the implication that I had confused or did not understand the difference between a kick and a punch.

No. You said everything is a punch to me. I've been talking about kicking. If a kick is not a punch, then your statement is false.

make assumptions about how others train, what they believe and their level of knowledge without the empirical evidence to support your claims.

I have the empirical evidence to support it. Anything I've ever noted about TWC can be seen on video readily available for viewing online.

You question someones actual experience but offer nothing to support your approach being better.

Whose experience? These are two separate issues.

You ask for video evidence yet have nothing of your own to post, for example.

When have I ever asked for video? The only thing remotely close to this is having asked for things I was not seeing in available video to be pointed out to me.

I don't demand video of people.