Wing chun long, medium, or short range sparring?

[tc101]

My example wasn't to imply it's the best or only way to teach, just to give a POV of 'principle'-based fighting from a teaching perspective where you can teach someone to use WC effectively and never once mention technique by focusing on proper mechanics, position, point of contact, leverage, centerline, etc..
There are many other classes where the focus is simply on a technique and it's use/application, say 'pak sau'

Yes I understood that was what you were trying to explain.

What's the difference? I thought I was pretty clear what I thought the difference was and explained it several times. But I will reiterate again, just for you 'T'

No, I didn't think simply described the action of tan sau in my second example. From the first example of 'just do a tan sau' you could do a tan sau as I described but step the wrong way and get hit, or not step at all and get hit by the free hand. Or try doing the shape but have the wrong facing, or the wrong energy. Tan sau is the 'what', my second example is the how, what and why. The first, you only take away an application for a technique, the second applies to other areas as well as it's concept-focused perspective - regardless the technique or application

Let me just stop you here. Maybe it's terminology maybe not but as I learned wing chun the actions like tan sau or bong sau or whatever are generic actions that most often can be used to do several different things. This is one of the things I like about the art. So the same generic action can be used as a strike or a block or to open a line or to escape a grab and so forth. Depending on what you are doing with the tool or action you may have to tweak it for example use a different energy as you say. I think here we are on the same line of thinking. This is taking the generic action and making it a technique or way to do something. Shape really doesn't enter into that unless by shape you mean the generic action. For me shape is the reference to the generic action not the action itself.

Here's the deal this technique you teach with the stepping is a fine way to teach how the tan sau action MIGHT be used as an escape from a grab and the stepping is a fine way to teach various things like coordinating what you do in upper and lower gates or being mindful of his the opponents free hand and so forth but that as a combative technique simply won't work. This is what I have pointed out before. This is not application this is teaching various elements of wing chun you are not teaching what to really do in fighting. You see in fighting the opponent is not going to simply grab your arm and stand there while you do a tan sau with a step but is going to be already moving and throwing the other hand or other wise doing something to you. I know I know you will tell me it can be done and I will say show me someone doing it in sparring. My point is no one is doing that in sparring. So what you teach as application is stuff no one really does and calling it application.

Again I think that what you are teaching is fine but it is not application and it misleads people into thinking this is how we do things in fighting.

The difference is, there are many many ways to do a 'tan sau', and we see arguments about the right and wrong way to do a technique here all the time. By focusing only on the technique, you will find a way, but that doesn't always mean it's the way that fits in with WC's ideas/goals of economy of motion, maximum efficiency (I don't care if you don't like the term, so please ignore 'maximum' if it suites you), and effectiveness. You will not necessarily learn to do tan sau that fits these concepts just by practicing it, or if you happen to, it may take a long long time. But if I teach an application based on the concepts, the technique could be anything. For instance, in my example, there are otherways to break the grab without using tan sau. But if I just showed you to 'do tan sau' you will miss this

I think there are many ways of doing the same technique. There is no one right or best way. The thing is you have to find out what works best for you.

I understand what you are saying about concepts teaching the larger picture, for example the concept of breaking the grab at the thumb. That's a useful concept for sure. My perspective is it is all a part of one package and that the concept is not the basis of everything it is just a part like everything else. You need concepts but also technique and they go hand in hand. You need all the parts. Since you need all the parts no one part is the basis.

Focusing only on technique you may be right, but the time frame for the learning process could be muuucccchhh longer. Now, I'm not advocating that you can simple tell someone the principle/concept and they got it. Far from it. they still have to put in the work and make it work for themselves. If you just want to see technique only, that's fine - because physically, that's all you really can see. But there's also the flip side of when you see someone trying a tan sau and it isn't working, is it because they are using the wrong technique? Or is it because they are using the technique wrongly? The concepts/principles are the guide for answering this. And by watching someone perform a technique, it is usually pretty easy to see if they understand them or not.

I am in complete agreement with you about the process. Let me try to make this as clear as I can. For me concept technique movement energy and so forth are intertwined as a whole and you need it all to make what you do work. I do not think this is in any way unique to wing chun it is just the reality of learning a combative art.

The other thing is many times you will see very very very good athletes who perform very very very well and can't explain or verbalized how they are able to do what they do so well. They may not understand it but they can do it. I do not think understanding is a basis of performance and our every day experience shows us that. That's not to say concepts can't help us perform.

I respect your view, but have a difficult time agreeing. One 'E' by itself, sure. 2 EE's, less-so. But IMO, when looking at EEE (all 3 together), there is a lot less room for personal interpretation - period.
That's like saying that there are different ways to say the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. You can argue otherwise and say the shortest distance between 2 points that are and inch apart is a huge zig zag spiral circle that is a mile long, and from some extreme physics examples you might prove your case, but the general idea of straight line is excepted as a common truth. But if someone says a jumping, spinning back fist is more EEE than a straight jab for hitting a stationary target with your at arm's length that is right in front of you with your fist, I'd reply that you're probably just arguing to argue. Put all 3 EEE together, and there is little room for arguing among rational people in that example.

My only argument is that human beings and performance and fighting does not work like geometry lol. Yes the shortest distance between two points is a straight line but I may not want to use the straight line even if it is there. Remember the Orr fighter who was doing chain punches with hooks and knocked his opponent out? He was not using straight punches intentionally. He was intentionally choosing not to use the shortest distance lol. He was not a slave to the system and was not stuck trying to conform to some self imposed limitations. He used what his experience taught him was the best way FOR HIM to get the KO in that situation.

The trouble with your way of thinking is it fails to take into account the reality of fighting, the individual differences, and your opponent. Yes a straight jab might hit him but he may be looking for it while a spinning back fist may catch him by surprise. How do you know when to do one or the other? I think that comes from experience.