Application Based vs. Non-Application Based Wing Chun

[LFJ]

So does that mean you are just going to stand there and get hit???? Its not a hard question to answer!!!

If you're saying we're walking down the street, probably with our hands down at our sides, maybe carrying bags and not poised to defend a punch, and then suddenly see a punch ALREADY on it's way to our face before we even detect the presence of an attacker, then yeah, most likely scenario is we get sucker punched. Same for you. Same for everyone.

To think you will have time to throw up a taan-sau or something to block a sucker punch like that is fantasy. The punch would have to be coming in super slow-motion.

Whether or not we'll be able to effectively defend against a sudden attack, and what we'll do to defend, depends on many factors, such that it is fantasy to plan for the unforeseen with specific techniques. This is why we don't train technique applications, but principles of fighting behavior.

Absolutely people can disagree without resorting to getting nasty and personal about it. That's what I mean about some turning every discussion into an argument. I guess I tend to get sucked into it.

No, KPM. You do not get sucked into anything. Over at the MT forum I get along with everyone else just fine when you're not around. Even gpseymour has been playing nice with me. They ask questions, I share what I know. No one argues or gets personal.

That only happens when you're there. It's much more civil when you're banned, suggesting the problem is you!

It occurs to me that neither you nor LFJ will answer this question because you realize that the only way to answer it is to describe how you would react....which would be how you would "apply" your skills.....and this would be an actual "application."

That's exactly what we have told you! We don't do preplanned applications! Of course we will not play your application game. That would be asking us to misuse VT.

How do you have a martial art where you don't "apply" what you know?

No one has said that. We do apply what we know, but what we know is not endless technique applications.

So you have three empty-hand forms and a long dummy form. But there are no applications taught in any of those forms....only concepts? If this is true, it sure seems to me that your Wing Chun is either way over-complicated, or way inefficient in teaching. If it takes that many forms to teach someone how to use your concepts and yet still learn no applications of those concepts, then that doesn't seem like a good training paradigm to me. I would think you could learn the concepts and principles in a much more efficient fashion. After all, you have eliminated learning various applications from these movements in the forms compared to everyone else's Wing Chun, shouldn't your Wing Chun be more stream-lined and simple in comparison???

VT is very simple and efficient in its training method. You simply do not understand it.

If you want to learn the system first, then see how you can simplify it and make it more efficient while not sacrificing important stages of development or outcome quality, be our guest!

You are walking down the street and suddenly a wide loopy punch comes whipping in at your head. What do you do???? Dave had no problem answering that question. So what's your problem?

Again?? Geez...

Dave had no problem because he has no problem with 1:1 applications.

Our "problem" is with 1:1 applications, like you've been told repeatedly!

[KPM]

If you're saying we're walking down the street, probably with our hands down at our sides, maybe carrying bags and not poised to defend a punch, and then suddenly see a punch ALREADY on it's way to our face before we even detect the presence of an attacker, then yeah, most likely scenario is we get sucker punched. Same for you. Same for everyone.

---Ok. So your answer IS that you will just stand there and get hit! Personally I would respond in some way.



No, KPM. You do not get sucked into anything. Over at the MT forum I get along with everyone else just fine when you're not around. Even gpseymour has been playing nice with me. They ask questions, I share what I know. No one argues or gets personal.

That only happens when you're there. It's much more civil when you're banned, suggesting the problem is you!

---Actually, things got much more civil there when Guy B. was banned. You manage to cloak your disdain in polite language. You say things like "you were dishonest" rather than saying "you're a liar!" So the moderators ignore it. The problem is that I get rather passionate about Wing Chun and "take your bait" more than the others. I need to follow Dave's and Geezer's advice and just ignore you. But believe me, most others in the MT forum view you and the way you post in the same way that I do! They are just better at not taking your baiting than I am!



That's exactly what we have told you! We don't do preplanned applications! Of course we will not play your application game. That would be asking us to misuse VT.

---And I pointed out that most of the videos you see and call "application based" are "pre-planned" only in the sense that they were doing a demo. No one goes out with the thought of "ok, if I see a wide loopy blow coming at my head I am going to throw up a Biu Sau as I angle away from the blow and do a punch up the center at the same time." Everyone in Wing Chun is going to react instinctively given the moment. If it was a rather tight punch someone might evade back like a boxer and then snap forward with a Pak Sau as the punch goes past. Who knows? It is NOT "pre-planned"!!! But.....the moment you DO respond...THAT is an application! Hence why I said I don't understand how you can have a martial art without applications! What I object to is saying that any Wing Chun method is "application-based." It may put more emphasis on applications than what you do. But that does not mean it is entirely based on applications! I still maintain that what WSL was doing in those videos I posted earlier is just as much an example of being "application based" as the videos you have called "application based."




Our "problem" is with 1:1 applications, like you've been told repeatedly!

---And as I have responded repeatedly....the second you use your skills and "apply" any technique, THAT becomes a 1:1 application! How do you have a martial art without 1:1 applications? What this really boils down to is a mindset in training, not a clear distinction between "application based" Wing Chun and "non-application based" Wing Chun. As I am understanding it, the mindset in WSLVT is to train for a "broader picture"..... to train for the "flow of the moment." But when you actually do a specific defensive technique to stop a specific attack, THAT is an "application" at that moment. Other Wjng Chun systems may have a mindset of training things more directly in the sense of working drills that teach how to use given defensive techniques in a given situation. But then they use other drills (like Chi Sau) to train for the "flow of the moment." They most certainly are not learning in a "tit for tat" approach like learning various escapes form a joint-lock in a self-defense class. So in the end both approaches result in "meeting at the middle" with similar results. You may say otherwise, but whenever you or other WSLVT guys have called something "application-based" it has been in a somewhat negative sense if not out-right derogatory. That is something else that I have always objected to!

[LFJ]

---Ok. So your answer IS that you will just stand there and get hit! Personally I would respond in some way.

Sure, you would, if you're the Flash.

In reality, in the scenario you described where a punch is already incoming out of nowhere before you even detect a person, anyone would most likely be hit unless the punch is coming in super slow-motion or from a mile away, no matter what you think you might do.

If you can block that, then you should be invincible once you got your dukes up.

No one goes out with the thought of "ok, if I see a wide loopy blow coming at my head I am going to throw up a Biu Sau as I angle away from the blow and do a punch up the center at the same time." Everyone in Wing Chun is going to react instinctively given the moment.

With the hope that your repeatedly trained biu-sau or what have you against this kind of punch (1:1) is what you instinctively react with.

Who knows? It is NOT "pre-planned"!!! But.....the moment you DO respond...THAT is an application!

An application of a technique pre-planned in training to be used in a certain way against a given attack, trained in 1:1 drills until it can be applied instinctively...

There is indeed pre-planning in an application-based system.

What I object to is saying that any Wing Chun method is "application-based." It may put more emphasis on applications than what you do. But that does not mean it is entirely based on applications!

Your "principles" guide applications of techniques pulled straight from your forms. That's application-based.

I still maintain that what WSL was doing in those videos I posted earlier is just as much an example of being "application based" as the videos you have called "application based."

VT can't be taught in a couple minutes like TWC.

---And as I have responded repeatedly....the second you use your skills and "apply" any technique, THAT becomes a 1:1 application!

What technique do I apply against what to become 1:1 application?

As I am understanding it, the mindset in WSLVT is to train for a "broader picture"..... to train for the "flow of the moment." But when you actually do a specific defensive technique to stop a specific attack, THAT is an "application" at that moment.

I don't do specific defensive techniques to stop specific attacks. As I've been telling you. We don't do 1:1 applications.

Restating the same falsehood doesn't make it true.

They most certainly are not learning in a "tit for tat" approach like learning various escapes form a joint-lock in a self-defense class.

What do you call that escape from a wrist grab interpretation of the last 3 actions in SNT, then?

Here at 23:27. Seems to be exactly what you're saying. https://youtu.be/IyJ5RTLWp3Y?t=23m37s

So in the end both approaches result in "meeting at the middle" with similar results.

Entirely different.

whenever you or other WSLVT guys have called something "application-based" it has been in a somewhat negative sense if not out-right derogatory.

Most MAs are application-based, and that's fine. It's only negative if your applications are unrealistic.

[KPM]

Sure, you would, if you're the Flash.

--- I said you see it coming. Not quite the same as a sucker punch. But go on deflecting and avoiding answering the question as much as you want.




An application of a technique pre-planned in training to be used in a certain way against a given attack, trained in 1:1 drills until it can be applied instinctively...

There is indeed pre-planning in an application-based system.

---Whatever you think. You obviously aren't even trying to follow what I have been saying.



Your "principles" guide applications of techniques pulled straight from your forms. That's application-based.

---No. That's principles inform application. That doesn't mean it isn't "principle based." The applications all have a cohesive logic behind them that are guided by the principles and what you referred to as "fighting behaviors."



VT can't be taught in a couple minutes like TWC.

---Another insulting and derogatory comment directed at TWC.



What technique do I apply against what to become 1:1 application?

---Again, this isn't rocket science! When you use any technique to directly address any attack, at that moment in time it becomes an "application."



I don't do specific defensive techniques to stop specific attacks. As I've been telling you. We don't do 1:1 applications.

Restating the same falsehood doesn't make it true.

---Restating your logical fallacy doesn't make it any truer either! If you are doing something....anything...that is an application of your skills.



What do you call that escape from a wrist grab interpretation of the last 3 actions in SNT, then?

Here at 23:27. Seems to be exactly what you're saying. https://youtu.be/IyJ5RTLWp3Y?t=23m37s

---Just as much so as what WSL is doing here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRAapB8g_XA


---He is showing a different interpretation of the "application" of this part of the form, but it is still an "application" nonetheless!!!

[LFJ]

--- I said you see it coming. Not quite the same as a sucker punch. But go on deflecting and avoiding answering the question as much as you want.

Yeah, you see it coming, meaning already in motion toward your face. How long does it take to land from that point? A freaking nanosecond.

If you can get your taan-sau up to block something like that, you are the Flash, and should never be hit when you actually got your dukes up ready to go!

Unless of course, super slo-mo and/or mile away.

The applications all have a cohesive logic behind them that are guided by the principles and what you referred to as "fighting behaviors."

What do I refer to as fighting behaviors? Sounds like you haven't understood. There are no 1:1 applications in VT fighting behavior.

---Another insulting and derogatory comment directed at TWC.

No secret I'm not a fan.

What technique do I apply against what to become 1:1 application?

---Again, this isn't rocket science! When you use any technique to directly address any attack, at that moment in time it becomes an "application."

I don't do 1:1 applications.

---Restating your logical fallacy doesn't make it any truer either!

Which logical fallacy?

If you are doing something....anything...that is an application of your skills.

But not necessarily 1:1 technique application. You have changed the entire meaning.

---Just as much so as what WSL is doing here:

---He is showing a different interpretation of the "application" of this part of the form, but it is still an "application" nonetheless!!!

How is recycling and replacing lead hands an application? What is being applied against what?

[guy b.]

If you are doing something....anything...that is an application of your skills.

No, application based MA is pre-planning to respond in some particular way to some particular type of attack. Like TWC doing multi blocks while trying to step around the opponent as they attack, or you pulling a tan to magically block when a punch appears from nowhere.

Attacking according to LLHS LSJC is not an application in this sense and WSL VT does not work in this way.

AS LFJ said, it isn't that pre-planning responses is inherently bad. It is pre-planning unrealistic responses that is the problem (like the two examples above). Many MA are application based.

If you weren't such a moron about it then it might be possible to discuss. Finger moon etc

[KPM]

No, application based MA is pre-planning to respond in some particular way to some particular type of attack. Like TWC doing multi blocks while trying to step around the opponent as they attack, or you pulling a tan to magically block when a punch appears from nowhere.

---But I've pointed out that it isn't really "pre-planning." You don't know what you are going to do in the heat of the moment. You react based upon instinct and training. I've said over and over again that it isn't "tit for tat."


Attacking according to LLHS LSJC is not an application in this sense and WSL VT does not work in this way.

---Ok. Then describe how you react to an attack. I'll reword the question for you since LJF was finding so many ways to deflect. You are walking down the street and see a mean looking guy with poor intentions step towards you and begin to throw a wide loopy punch towards your head. What do you do from a LLHS LSJC perspective?



AS LFJ said, it isn't that pre-planning responses is inherently bad. It is pre-planning unrealistic responses that is the problem (like the two examples above). Many MA are application based.

---Again, there is nothing "pre-planning" about it. But I can agree that training unrealistic responses is a bad idea.


If you weren't such a moron about it then it might be possible to discuss.

---Still with the insults and name-calling?

[LFJ]

---But I've pointed out that it isn't really "pre-planning." You don't know what you are going to do in the heat of the moment. You react based upon instinct and training.

...with techniques you've pre-planned and trained to be instinctively applied against a given attack.

[KPM]

...with techniques you've pre-planned and trained to be instinctively applied against a given attack.

Ok. So describe to us all the contrast from the way you train. You aren't responding instinctively with Wing Chun techniques that you have trained?

[guy b.]

Ok. So describe to us all the contrast from the way you train. You aren't responding instinctively with Wing Chun techniques that you have trained?

VT not a technique based system and not a reactive system. It is a way of attacking other people.

[guy b.]

You react based upon instinct and training. I've said over and over again that it isn't "tit for tat."

If you train to always bust a particular move in response to some stimulus then you will react in that way when that stimulus presents. This is why (for example) western boxers are easy to leg kick when presented with certain stimuli. The auto responses they tend to train are unfortunately often poor choices where leg kicks and knees are options. This is why MT doesn't look like western boxing, although both are training to compete under a similar comp format.

Ok. Then describe how you react to an attack

VT is not about reacting, it is about imposing upon. It takes the initiative, does not surrender it.

Again, there is nothing "pre-planning" about it. But I can agree that training unrealistic responses is a bad idea.

Training particular responses in response to particular stimuli is application based MA or "pre-planning". This is what TWC does and apparently what you and all of the other systems you have trained do as well.

Still with the insults and name-calling?

When you keep on saying things like that below, despite the explanations you have received, then what else am I supposed to think? I know you hate for me to think of you as a malicious and dishonest troll- so you should be happy because just being a moron is an alternative which explains your actions quite well.

You are walking down the street and see a mean looking guy with poor intentions step towards you and begin to throw a wide loopy punch towards your head. What do you do from a LLHS LSJC perspective?

[KPM]

VT not a technique based system and not a reactive system. It is a way of attacking other people.

So, in the given scenario in my question, you wouldn't react to someone coming at you??? That makes no sense! Every fighter with any experience at all will tell you that you need both a good defense as well as a good offense!!!

[KPM]

If you train to always bust a particular move in response to some stimulus then you will react in that way when that stimulus presents. This is why (for example) western boxers are easy to leg kick when presented with certain stimuli. The auto responses they tend to train are unfortunately often poor choices where leg kicks and knees are options. This is why MT doesn't look like western boxing, although both are training to compete under a similar comp format.


---Yes, I agree with what you are saying. But all it would take is for the boxer to know he is going to be facing someone that will leg kick and then train to defend against it.



VT is not about reacting, it is about imposing upon. It takes the initiative, does not surrender it.


---So what do you do in a scenario where you are the one being attacked, if you can't react to the attack? What do you do in a scenario where you haven't been successful in keeping the initiative and the opponent has taken it from you? Do you just give up?



Training particular responses in response to particular stimuli is application based MA or "pre-planning". This is what TWC does and apparently what you and all of the other systems you have trained do as well.


---Once again, I don't know where you are getting this idea of "pre-planning." Reinforcing good reactions by training drills isn't "pre-planning" anything. When a musician practices scales, is he "pre-planning" a song?



When you keep on saying things like that below, despite the explanations you have received, then what else am I supposed to think? I know you hate for me to think of you as a malicious and dishonest troll- so you should be happy because just being a moron is an alternative which explains your actions quite well.

---Enough with the name-calling and insults.

---Look, I get what you are saying. I'm just trying to get you guys to see that there isn't the big distinction between the two approaches that you seem to think there is. But you refuse to even consider what I am saying. You can't have a martial art without "applications." The minute you actually do something in a fight you have "applied" your martial art. Using a technique or movement is "applying" that technique or movement. But I get that you don't train individual drills or techniques with the idea of learning how they are used. What you don't seem to get is that everyone else also has the principles and concepts of Wing Chun, just like you. Using the term "application-based" in a negative and derogatory fashion is just wrong (and don't try and deny that you guys have done so!). WSL was showing applications from the forms in those videos I posted. Now you may choose to de-emphasize applications from the forms, but anytime you move in a fight and are using the concepts of Wing Chun, how can you not be "applying" things from the forms? Like I wrote before, there seems to be a spectrum with versions of Wing Chun heavy on training applications on one side, and versions with very little training of applications on the other. But both versions have both the concepts as well as applications. Because, again, you can't practice a physical art without "applying" it in some way! You guys always want to talk in absolutes and show how much different your WSLVT is from everyone else. But there are no absolutes.

[LFJ]

You aren't responding instinctively with Wing Chun techniques that you have trained?

As we've repeated, things from the forms, like taan-sau, are not techniques that we train, and we don't practice 1:1 applications.

What we develop through training are fighting behaviors like LLHS,LSJC, not throwing out the "correct" technique in response to a particular attack.

I don't know where you are getting this idea of "pre-planning." Reinforcing good reactions by training drills isn't "pre-planning" anything.

If by "good reactions" you mean like a taan-sau to block a round punch, obviously, if you train that in drills you are planning to use it when a round punch comes, rather than a gaang-sau, or rather than against a body shot.

You aren't planning your fights out step-by-step, but you are planning specific techniques to throw out in response to specific stimuli.

This is pre-planning, and this is 1:1 application. There is nothing wrong with this approach, so long as your applications aren't unrealistic.

---Look, I get what you are saying....

...You can't have a martial art without "applications."

Clearly, you do not.

The minute you actually do something in a fight you have "applied" your martial art.

You have changed the meaning of application to seem like we are doing the same thing.

This is a dishonest tactic.

Instead of trying to understand what we do, you are attempting to say it's no different from what you do. Clearly some sort of ego thing.

Using a technique or movement is "applying" that technique or movement. But I get that you don't train individual drills or techniques with the idea of learning how they are used.

So, you think we're training "techniques" in our forms, but then discard them and learn nothing?

You have been told the actions in the forms are not "techniques". Drilling them in 1:1 applications to "learn how they are used" is misunderstanding and misusing them.

Now you may choose to de-emphasize applications from the forms, but anytime you move in a fight and are using the concepts of Wing Chun, how can you not be "applying" things from the forms?

We don't "de-emphasize". There are no applications from the forms!

The forms train mechanics and attributes and introduce abstract concepts we will employ in fighting.

We are not applying actions directly from the forms like TWC and most others!

Like I wrote before, there seems to be a spectrum with versions of Wing Chun heavy on training applications on one side, and versions with very little training of applications on the other. But both versions have both the concepts as well as applications. Because, again, you can't practice a physical art without "applying" it in some way!

Again, you are changing the meaning of application to suit your dishonest conclusion.

[guy b.]

Yes, I agree with what you are saying. But all it would take is for the boxer to know he is going to be facing someone that will leg kick and then train to defend against it

The point is that application trained fighters react as they have trained. If you train unrealistic applications then your reactions in fighting will be unrealistic.

So what do you do in a scenario where you are the one being attacked, if you can't react to the attack? What do you do in a scenario where you haven't been successful in keeping the initiative and the opponent has taken it from you? Do you just give up?

Recover, attack

Once again, I don't know where you are getting this idea of "pre-planning." Reinforcing good reactions by training drills isn't "pre-planning" anything. When a musician practices scales, is he "pre-planning" a song?

Training specific responses to specific stimuli is not analogous to a musician practising scales. Hitting a bag is more like running through scales. Training particular responses is the essential defining part of application based MA training.

Look, I get what you are saying. I'm just trying to get you guys to see that there isn't the big distinction between the two approaches that you seem to think there is. But you refuse to even consider what I am saying. You can't have a martial art without "applications. The minute you actually do something in a fight you have "applied" your martial art. Using a technique or movement is "applying" that technique or movement. "

Then you don't get what I am saying. You are using the term "applications" in two different ways here and conflating the different meanings. Application based training is the practice of specific responses to specific stimuli for use in fighting. Like learning multi-step block and step arounds in TWC.

But I get that you don't train individual drills or techniques with the idea of learning how they are used. What you don't seem to get is that everyone else also has the principles and concepts of Wing Chun, just like you.

Do they? Why is it that discussion of this well known conceptual approach makes the snowflakes on the other forum so angry then..?

Using the term "application-based" in a negative and derogatory fashion is just wrong (and don't try and deny that you guys have done so!).

There is nothing wrong with being application based. Bjj is heavily application based, at least in the beginning, and is an excellent martial art. The important thing with the application based approach is that the responses are realistic, efficient, effective.

Now you may choose to de-emphasize applications from the forms, but anytime you move in a fight and are using the concepts of Wing Chun, how can you not be "applying" things from the forms? Like I wrote before, there seems to be a spectrum with versions of Wing Chun heavy on training applications on one side, and versions with very little training of applications on the other. But both versions have both the concepts as well as applications. Because, again, you can't practice a physical art without "applying" it in some way! You guys always want to talk in absolutes and show how much different your WSLVT is from everyone else. But there are no absolutes.

We don't apply techniques from the forms because that is not what the forms are for.