# What does Efficiency mean to you?



## geezer (Jan 29, 2016)

It's often stated that _efficiency _is a core concept, perhaps even _the _core concept of WC. But efficiency can mean a lot of things. On another thread, LFJ pointed out that it is _not_ the same thing as effectiveness. All Martial Arts seek effectiveness, yet not all stress maximum efficiency. Effectiveness is "getting the job done", while efficiency is "getting the job done for the _least input_". But that can mean many things. It isn't just "getting the most bang for your buck" or "the highest mileage". There are many kinds of efficiency. There's the efficiency of _time_, the efficiency of_ movement_, the efficiency of _energy_, and even the efficiency of _training methods_. All are, to some degree interrelated, and all are considered -- at least in my WC/VT though all are not stressed equally. In my experience, the emphasis and understanding of "efficiency" what it is and how it should be achieved varies a lot between WC/VT lineages and branches. 

So what is_ your_ concept of efficiency?


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jan 29, 2016)

As Sifu sez... "It takes a lot of work to learn to move so little."

I like to think of efficiency followed to conclusion is "being expedient". Efficiency of movement means less risk of being trapped or beaten to the punch (no pun), and potentially being a step ahead by having more nuanced reactions. I sometimes find myself having to step or turn to dissolve attacks in chi-sau, and then will notice when someone more senior is able to dissolve with less movement or in a different way, and those are "aha" moments for me.

Chasing center and not limbs is a pretty obvious facet of being efficient that I think we can all likely agree on, even if it works itself out differently depending on the person.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 29, 2016)

Efficiency in fighting and in particularly wing chun is much more than just striking the opponent in the most direct and effective manner. Efficiency is producing a desired result without a waste of time, energy, and movement with no damage to your self.

On a theoretical and strategic aspect it is simple and direct. In reality not so.
For instance; a punch deflected as you strike your opponent doesn’t strike you or if it does it has no damaging power against your shoulder but yours knocks him out or takes the fight out of him.
Efficient?

How about that same punch action but this time the opponent’s punch is not just a punch but a knife thrust. That same no damaging power becomes a stab into your shoulder but your punch knocks him out.
Efficient?


----------



## geezer (Jan 29, 2016)

Danny, you make the excellent point that _effectiveness_ is a component that must be factored into any definition of efficiency ...and effectiveness varies depending on the situation. So efficiency is *not* an unchanging absolute.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 29, 2016)

Efficiency is not relative


----------



## geezer (Jan 29, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Efficiency is not relative



Yes, it _absolutely_ is. That is because _efficiency_ boils down to _getting the job done with the minimum input_. So to be efficient, you have to _effective as well. _For example, I drive a Scion XB and my brother drives a Toyota Tundra 4 x 4. Of course, my little XB gets better mileage while carrying the same number of people.

_But, is it more efficient? _Certainly it is ...around town, and even on trips. But what about for camping or hunting in the back country, off-roading, or in the snow? Or, when you have to carry a lot of gear and pull a trailer? Then the Scion just won't get the job done. It's _not effective_. And if it isn't effective, it's no longer efficient! So, clearly efficiency can_ only_ be judged relative to the context. The same is true for WC/VT. Sometimes the situation demands that we modify our approach.

And this is exactly the point Danny was making.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 29, 2016)

geezer said:


> Yes, it _absolutely_ is. That is because _efficiency_ boils down to _getting the job done with the minimum input_. So to be efficient, you have to _effective as well. _For example, I drive a Scion XB and my brother drives a Toyota Tundra 4 x 4. Of course, my little XB gets better mileage while carrying the same number of people.



I believe that your opinion is based upon a misunderstanding of what the term efficiency means in terms of wing chun


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 29, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Efficiency is not relative


It is a relative of timing. I asked. LOL


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 29, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I believe that your opinion is based upon a misunderstanding of what the term efficiency means in terms of wing chun


Lay it on us. If it isn't about timing you are way wrong.


----------



## Phobius (Jan 29, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I believe that your opinion is based upon a misunderstanding of what the term efficiency means in terms of wing chun



If you say A you have to say B.

We can not guess what you think efficiency means in terms of WC/VT. Reason beng you have not shown to hold any experience with WC/VT. At least none so far that I recall.

Not saying you have no knowledge of WC/VT but that we simply can not know.

Besides, you should make sure your glass is not full already if you want to share knowledge. It is a perfectly good waste of knowledge if you just spill out everything.


----------



## geezer (Jan 29, 2016)

Touch Of Death said:


> Lay it on us. If it isn't about timing you are way wrong.



It's important to define and clarify your terms at the outset of a discussion if you are truly interested in a meaningful conversation. That, in part, is what I was doing, what _Danny_ was doing, and what you are doing, _T.O.D._

I'd agree that _one_ key aspect of efficiency, as applied to _my _WC/VT, has to do with time and distance. I'm talking about finding the shortest distance between weapon and target which is a straight line, or at least the straightest line possible (in case you have to detour around an obstruction). This is certainly one of the more _obvious_ aspects of efficiency in WC/VT that is integrated synergistically with "other efficiencies", to engineer a fighting system that is intended to be as mechanically efficient as  humanly possible.

Some _other areas_ in which efficiency is sought include an efficiency of _structure, position, stance, and steps_ that allows for maximum protection (defense) while also being optimal for delivering offense. There is the efficiency of _power generation_ _and delivery_, allowing for developing linear, non-telegraphic "short power". Then there is the efficiency that comes from _generating this power in a relaxed way_ that is not totally dependent upon size and strength. Of course, there is the _efficiency of technique_, using the smallest movements possible to achieve the greatest end, with mottos such as "simultaneous attack and defense" and "attacking hand is defending hand". In my lineage, there is the efficiency of shortened response-time created by combining forward intent and forward pressure with "elastic muscular rebound" or_ "springy energy"_. And finally, there is the efficiency of being able to _borrow your opponent's force_. I can think of at least six distinct ways to accomplish this. In fact, at my old sifu's prompting, I wrote a feature article on this subject for a magazine called _Inside Kung-fu_ back in the early 80s.

I'm interested in learning about what each of us can share about these different aspects of  WC/VT efficiency as practiced in our separate lineages, branches and kwoons. And if people have other concepts of how efficiency applies to WC/VT, I'm all ears.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 29, 2016)

geezer said:


> It's important to define and clarify your terms at the outset of a discussion if you are truly interested in a meaningful conversation. That, in part, is what was doing, what Danny was doing, and what you are doing.
> 
> I'd agree that _one_ key aspect of efficiency, as applied to _my _WC/VT, has to do with distance and time. I'm talking about finding the shortest distance between weapon and target which is a straight line, or at least the straightest line possible in case you have to detour around and obstruction. This is certainly one of the more _obvious_ aspects of efficiency in WC/VT that is integrated synergistically with "other efficiencies" if you will, to engineer a fighting system that is intended to be as mechanically efficient as  humanly possible.
> 
> I'm interested in learning about what each of us can share about these different aspects of efficiency as practiced in our separate lineages, branches and kwoons.


I would agree with what you just said, "Go straight, unless you need to go around something", as a general rule, but know that puts speed ahead of power. And, that is a good thing.


----------



## KPM (Jan 30, 2016)

I agree with what Steve and Danny have said so far.   Efficiency absolutely is "relative", even in the specific case of Wing Chun! 

If I am using Wing Chun to defend against an empty-handed attacker, I can be very direct and "chase center", as the saying goes.  I can go in with a punch in the usual Wing Chun fashion.  However, if the attacker has a knife I have to make sure I gain control of the knife-wielding limb before I go into his center with a punch or I will very likely end up dead or seriously injured!  What I do against someone with a knife would likely be considered "chasing hands" if I did the same thing against an empty-hand attacker.  Therefore my Wing Chun response....including effectiveness and efficiency....is relative to the situation.  In other words....what I have trained empty-hand in the kwoon may not be at all efficient when it comes to dealing with someone with I knife if I end up dead or seriously injured in the process!

And effectiveness has to  be a factor when talking about efficiency.  It might be very efficient to step directly into an opponent with a hard punch.  But if he connects with a haymaker to the side of your head before you can stop him...it wasn't very effective!

Your goal must be taken into account as well.  If your system contains some Chin Na or controlling methods and it not just about punching someone out, then you have the ability to choose the level of "lethalness" of your response.  I've used the case of drunk uncle Ed in the past.  Now if good ole uncle Ed is harassing me at the New Year's eve party to "show him my Kung Fu", the most efficient thing to do would be to punch him out!  Deflecting a punch and putting him into a joint lock would be considered "chasing hands" and inefficient from the viewpoint of pure fighting.  But if my goal is not to hurt uncle Ed, then the most efficient thing to do is to toss him on the couch with a joint lock and convince him to back off with the champagne!   So my end goal in the confrontation is a factor in how efficient my response is judged to be.

Efficiency is getting the job done with the least amount of investment of time and energy.  An efficient machine is one which puts out the highest amount of work while consuming the least amount of fuel or energy.  But if the work being performed is not accomplishing the end goal desired, then the machine is not very effective and its level of efficiency is a moot point.  However, the machine may be put to a different task that it performs very well.  Therefore its actual efficiency in terms of getting the job done is relative to the task.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2016)

Efficiency.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 30, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I believe that your opinion is based upon a misunderstanding of what the term efficiency means in terms of wing chun


Please advance your thoughts with us. What is your understanding of what the term efficiency means in terms of wing chun and as to wing chun strategy and tactics.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 30, 2016)

Efficiency in VT's core strategy is specific, not relative.

VT was designed for one end only: to end a fight quickly and decisively.

I would not use VT on Uncle Ed.

I would not use VT against a crazed killer with a knife.

In a serious hand-to-hand combat situation– the specific problem VT was designed to handle– efficiency means using the least number of tools and steps and the least action needed to end the fight. It necessarily goes hand-in-hand with directness.

To illustrate, one arm used with dual functions of attack and defense in a single beat direct to the target is most ideal. When met with obstruction, a _jat_ or _paak _for example to open the line with one arm while striking with the other would be secondary, but most direct and efficient for that circumstance.

The attack line is maintained so that each hand can immediate follow up from the next hit position, cyclically working from point to point. No running outward to meet or guide attacks or taking wide detours when the line is free or can be made free with a more direct action.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 30, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Efficiency in VT's core strategy is specific, not relative.
> 
> VT was designed for one end only: to end a fight quickly and decisively.


Agreed.


LFJ said:


> I would not use VT on Uncle Ed.


Why not? Are you unable to control your movements, power, and force?



LFJ said:


> I would not use VT against a crazed killer with a knife.


Interesting.
Even if you are unable to get away? 



LFJ said:


> In a serious hand-to-hand combat situation– the specific problem VT was designed to handle– efficiency means using the least number of tools and steps and the least action needed to end the fight. It necessarily goes hand-in-hand with directness.
> 
> To illustrate, one arm used with dual functions of attack and defense in a single beat direct to the target is most ideal. When met with obstruction, a _jat_ or _paak _for example to open the line with one arm while striking with the other would be secondary, but most direct and efficient for that circumstance.
> 
> The attack line is maintained so that each hand can immediate follow up from the next hit position, cyclically working from point to point. No running outward to meet or guide attacks or taking wide detours when the line is free or can be made free with a more direct action.


Agree
I don't believe anyone disagrees with this being your referring to 'when the line is free or can be made free'. 
It may well be that your skills are simply much better than mine or that the skills of those I experiment with are better than those you experiment with so you have more moments of success with having open lines and therefore are able to use a single direct tactic. 
In my case I feel about 50% of my attacks get redirected enough that I often have to use a secondary or even a tertiary action. It isn't that I want that but if I don't go to a secondary or tertiary action then I get hit. And for me that isn't very effective or efficient For Me.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 30, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Why not? Are you unable to control your movements, power, and force?



No. I'd probably just push him down on the coach and leave the room.



> Interesting.
> Even if you are unable to get away?



In all likelihood, if someone wanted to stab me, the knife would be between my ribs before I ever knew there was a threat.

If someone flashed a knife at me, it'd probably be to intimidate more than to actually kill me, in which case I'd be out of there quick, fast, and in a hurry.



> I don't believe anyone disagrees with this being your referring to 'when the line is free or can be made free'.



Well, I see a lot of the opposite in Wing Chun.

Instead of _jat_ or _paak_ or a sharp _bong_ to open the line and continue direct striking when a punch is interrupted or line obstructed, people will sometimes change to _bong-sau_ and try to divert the incoming force "passively" and even rotate themselves off line, changing footwork, structure, and angles, then laap before getting another strike in. 

Typical Wing Chun move. It's much more than necessary. A lot of superfluous movement and two consecutive defensive actions when unnecessary. Inefficient.



> It may well be that your skills are simply much better than mine or that the skills of those I experiment with are better than those you experiment with so you have more moments of success with having open lines and therefore are able to use a single direct tactic.
> In my case I feel about 50% of my attacks get redirected enough that I often have to use a secondary or even a tertiary action. It isn't that I want that but if I don't go to a secondary or tertiary action then I get hit. And for me that isn't very effective or efficient For Me.



Never said I would land every punch either!

Your secondary or tertiary actions could still be efficient as long as they are the least necessary to accomplish the task after being interrupted. If you're using steps beyond what is necessary, as above, then it's inefficient.


----------



## geezer (Jan 30, 2016)

LFJ said:


> *Efficiency in VT's core strategy is specific, not relative...*
> 
> 
> In a serious hand-to-hand combat situation– the specific problem VT was designed to handle– efficiency means using the least number of tools and steps and the least action needed to end the fight. It necessarily goes hand-in-hand with directness.
> ...



_I agree._ Efficiency as a _strategy_ is specific, what constitutes the most efficient response varies. 

One can objectively determine if a given solution to a problem is the most direct and efficient approach or not. When I previously stated that efficiency is _relative_, I was referring to how what constitutes the most efficient response or "answer" will depend upon the exact nature of the "question". In other words, what you described in your second sentence above regarding  using _jut _or _pak_ to remove an obstruction.

Finally I'd like to address the following:



LFJ said:


> ...Well, I see a lot of the _opposite_ (of efficiency) in Wing Chun.
> 
> Instead of _jat_ or _paak_ or a sharp _bong_ to open the line and continue direct striking when a punch is interrupted or line obstructed, people will sometimes change to _bong-sau_ and try to divert the incoming force "passively" and even rotate themselves off line, changing footwork, structure, and angles, then laap before getting another strike in.



You have accurately described a well known training sequence in LT's "WT" system. I practiced this when I trained under LT and still use it in my class curriculum. It trains certain attributes and response patterns such as a springy bong-sau and turning stance which we find to be useful. And, as you pointed out, it is also an obviously inefficient movement. It is far more direct, efficient, and effective to deflect the oncoming punch with bong and simply strike your opponent with the other hand.

The point is, that is a _drill_ done for specific reasons. It has been also shown (incorrectly IMO) as a fighting move, even by LT himself. Well, as you pointed out, people can find plenty of old pictures of WSL demonstrating classical _tan-da_ as a fighting move. But that is _not _how you apply your system. I believe you. What I don't know is why these Chinese Sifu's would show this stuff publicly and train their "disciples" differently. But they did.


----------



## ShortBridge (Jan 30, 2016)

Watch one of the masters of jazz double bass playing a bit of blues here in the beginning. Pay attention to how little movement in his right hand happens that isn't absolutely necessary for what he's doing. Now watch the student (7:14) who plays fairly well herself, but look how much more movement and tension is clearly present. The difference is relaxation and efficiency and it's one of the things that enables Mr. Brown to play more complex, more deliberate things, perfectly in time and in tune and do so for hours on end without his skills degrading. 






Now watch how little un-necessary movement his happening in the body with these expert moguls skiers:






Compared to this amateur:





Efficiency is a universal quality of expertise in any endeavor from public speaking to martial arts. Quietness, stillness, economy of motion should all be trained and aspired to regardless of the endeavor or discipline. It's not mystical, it's just a component of mastery.

In my humble opinion, of course.


----------



## geezer (Jan 30, 2016)

Good post! Back in the '60s and 70's I did a bit of ski racing. Never was any good, except at breaking my legs. Still, I met some top racers. Sometimes the best would look slower running the course, but if you checked the time they were way fast. Just so relaxed, smooth and efficient. They didn't "fight" or struggle like the rest of us. So to the untrained eye, they didn't seem as fast.


----------



## yak sao (Jan 30, 2016)

One of my favorites quotes from my si-fu is "_learn to get better and better at doing less and less".
_


----------



## KPM (Jan 30, 2016)

Efficiency in VT's core strategy is specific, not relative.

---Specific as a strategy...yes.  But relative in application as I pointed out previously.

VT was designed for one end only: to end a fight quickly and decisively.

---Don't generalize to all Wing Chun.  That may very well be true of WSLVT.  But the Wing Chun I learned is broad enough to allow for "less than lethal" responses. 

I would not use VT on Uncle Ed.

---Then that must be because your VT does not allow for those kind of situations.  That's a shame.  That makes it sound rather one-dimensional. 

I would not use VT against a crazed killer with a knife.

---I agree it would have to be an "adapted" Wing Chun and not "classical" Wing Chun because Wing Chun was not designed with that situation in mind.  But it can be done.  I think Danny would agree with that!  


To illustrate, one arm used with dual functions of attack and defense in a single beat direct to the target is most ideal. When met with obstruction, a _jat_ or _paak _for example to open the line with one arm while striking with the other would be secondary, but most direct and efficient for that circumstance.

---I agree.  But what if you do NOT actually want to strike the opponent solidly in the face?  Or what if he is throwing a wide "loopy" punch?


 No running outward to meet or guide attacks or taking wide detours when the line is free or can be made free with a more direct action.

----What if the direct line to the opponent is free, but something is coming at you quickly from another line at the same time?


In all likelihood, if someone wanted to stab me, the knife would be between my ribs before I ever knew there was a threat.

---This is true.  But unfortunately if someone wanted to mug you on the street they are liable to sucker punch you before you realize they are a threat.  If someone wanted to knock you down with little threat to themselves they might very well smash you with a bat or a board before you realized they were a threat.  That doesn't mean one wouldn't train to defend oneself against an attack with a bat, or a board, or a knife.


 If someone flashed a knife at me, it'd probably be to intimidate more than to actually kill me, in which case I'd be out of there quick, fast, and in a hurry.

---Ideally yes.  But would you want to bet your life on being able to "be out of there" without defending yourself first??


----------



## marques (Jan 30, 2016)

geezer said:


> So what is_ your_ concept of efficiency?


Efficiency = Power Out / Power In
If you transmit all your power in your target (or you do what you want without power (energy...) losses), 100% efficiency. (what never happens)
If you lose energy heating too much your body or contracting useless muscles, <100% efficiency obviously, but higher with "less and less" energy losses..
If you miss your target (or a good target by chance), nearly 0% efficiency.


----------



## geezer (Jan 30, 2016)

marques said:


> Efficiency = Power Out / Power In
> If you transmit all your power in your target (or you do what you want without power (energy...) losses), 100% efficiency. (what never happens)
> If you lose energy heating too much your body or contracting useless muscles, <100% efficiency obviously, but should be as high as possible.
> If you miss your target (or a good target by chance), nearly 0% efficiency.



Good, simple answer  ...if you are talking about delivering _a single punch_. It gets a lot more complicated talking about a fighting system. For example, if you assume that you can't rely on one punch to end a fight, then you have to consider how that first punch sets you up in relation to the opponent for follow up attacks and/or counters. Also, can you channel some of that initial energy into the next technique, or is it all expended in the first attempt? These are important questions.


An analogy would be a game of pool played well, so that each shot sets up the next one till you clear the table. That's the kind of efficiency you need in a fight.


----------



## JP3 (Jan 30, 2016)

My concept isn't out of WC but out of judo.  Maximum results with minimum effort = efficiency. More for less, like that.


----------



## marques (Jan 30, 2016)

geezer said:


> Good, simple answer  ...if you are talking about delivering _a single punch_. It gets a lot more complicated talking about a fighting system. For example, if you assume that you can't rely on one punch to end a fight, then you have to consider how that first punch sets you up in relation to the opponent for follow up attacks and/or counters. Also, can you channel some of that initial energy into the next technique, or is it all expended in the first attempt? These are important questions.
> 
> An analogy would be a game of pool played well, so that each shot sets up the next one till you clear the table. That's the kind of efficiency you need in a fight.


Not sure if I understood, but I think I agree.
I was trained to strike or grab in the way that requires less and less force. And I was trained to have 'always' a second plan to follow every 'move'. So I should use the initial force to the following move (that is faster ans easier). At the end is the same Ef = Total Power Output in the fight / Total Power Input in the fight. In theory. In practice, maybe we can measure it in damage caused / energy used....


----------



## LFJ (Jan 30, 2016)

KPM said:


> Efficiency in VT's core strategy is specific, not relative.
> 
> ---Specific as a strategy...yes.  But relative in application as I pointed out previously.



Don't generalize to all Wing Chun.



> VT was designed for one end only: to end a fight quickly and decisively.
> 
> ---Don't generalize to all Wing Chun.  That may very well be true of WSLVT.  But the Wing Chun I learned is broad enough to allow for "less than lethal" responses.



I said VT and in response to a thread that asks what something means _to me_.



> I would not use VT on Uncle Ed.
> 
> ---Then that must be because your VT does not allow for those kind of situations.  That's a shame.  That makes it sound rather one-dimensional.



Whatever. Takes a multi-dimensional MA and a big man to put a drunk uncle in his place.

Any non MAist could drop him on the couch and leave the room.



> I would not use VT against a crazed killer with a knife.
> 
> ---I agree it would have to be an "adapted" Wing Chun and not "classical" Wing Chun because Wing Chun was not designed with that situation in mind.  But it can be done.  I think Danny would agree with that!



Have you done it? How do you know it can be done?



> To illustrate, one arm used with dual functions of attack and defense in a single beat direct to the target is most ideal. When met with obstruction, a _jat_ or _paak _for example to open the line with one arm while striking with the other would be secondary, but most direct and efficient for that circumstance.
> 
> ---I agree.  But what if you do NOT actually want to strike the opponent solidly in the face?  Or what if he is throwing a wide "loopy" punch?



If I'm in a serious scrap, I _will_ want to strike the opponent solidly in the face, and I won't go chasing loopy punches.



> No running outward to meet or guide attacks or taking wide detours when the line is free or can be made free with a more direct action.
> 
> ----What if the direct line to the opponent is free, but something is coming at you quickly from another line at the same time?



Depends on the situation what I'd do, but it won't entail running outward to meet attacks.



> ---This is true.  But unfortunately if someone wanted to mug you on the street they are liable to sucker punch you before you realize they are a threat.  If someone wanted to knock you down with little threat to themselves they might very well smash you with a bat or a board before you realized they were a threat.  That doesn't mean one wouldn't train to defend oneself against an attack with a bat, or a board, or a knife.



And if someone wanted to shoot me, they'd do it from a distance. What Wing Chun training ideas have you got for that?



> If someone flashed a knife at me, it'd probably be to intimidate more than to actually kill me, in which case I'd be out of there quick, fast, and in a hurry.
> 
> ---Ideally yes.  But would you want to bet your life on being able to "be out of there" without defending yourself first??



I'm not gonna fight a guy with a knife who's not attacking me. If he wanted to stab me, like I said, it would likely happen before I knew there was a threat. 

Given response time, I'd be giving up my wallet or using an equalizer, not chasing a knife hand. Even if you got control of the hand, the knife could switch hands very quickly and you'd be full of holes before you noticed. 

Fortunately, I live in a safe place that is densely populated but with 0 gun crime and very low violent crime rates, especially against foreigners.


----------



## KPM (Jan 31, 2016)

Impressive!  LFJ, you responded to an entire post and I don't think you answered a single question I asked or responded with any real information to any point that I made.  You called me several choice names when you thought I had done exactly what you just did in your response!  But I won't repeat them here.  Talk about ironic!


----------



## LFJ (Jan 31, 2016)

You mean you want me to give you a specific response to a hypothetical situation? That's not how VT works. Sounds like you are fishing for ideas on dealing with looping punches, since your idea is impractical. Why don't you ask your kung-fu-online mentor you give money to?


----------



## KPM (Jan 31, 2016)

LFJ said:


> You mean you want me to give you a specific response to a hypothetical situation? That's not how VT works. Sounds like you are fishing for ideas on dealing with looping punches, since your idea is impractical. Why don't you ask your kung-fu-online mentor you give money to?



You are pathetic man.  You really are!


----------



## guy b. (Jan 31, 2016)

KPM said:


> You are pathetic man.  You really are!



KPM please stop trolling these threads.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 31, 2016)

KPM said:


> You are pathetic man.  You really are!


Is this an efficient way of martial talking?


----------



## Danny T (Jan 31, 2016)

LFJ said:


> No. I'd probably just push him down on the coach and leave the room.


That is a possibility if he is so drunk as to be just stumbling around.
I don't know your uncle Ed, my uncle Ed is just a hot head who looses his cool a lot. We don't just push him down and we don't just finish him.



LFJ said:


> In all likelihood, if someone wanted to stab me, the knife would be between my ribs before I ever knew there was a threat.
> 
> If someone flashed a knife at me, it'd probably be to intimidate more than to actually kill me, in which case I'd be out of there quick, fast, and in a hurry.


Yes this is a strong likely hood... And is why I specifically asked "even if you are unable to get away?" 
I'm still here having been stabbed in the right side (thought I had been punched). I stopped the guy by fighting back. So I reiterate the question. Even if you can not get away?



LFJ said:


> Well, I see a lot of the opposite in Wing Chun.
> 
> Instead of _jat_ or _paak_ or a sharp _bong_ to open the line and continue direct striking when a punch is interrupted or line obstructed, people will sometimes change to _bong-sau_ and try to divert the incoming force "passively" and even rotate themselves off line, changing footwork, structure, and angles, then laap before getting another strike in.
> 
> Typical Wing Chun move. It's much more than necessary. A lot of superfluous movement and two consecutive defensive actions when unnecessary. Inefficient.


Agreed, "IF" the line is controlled or opened. If not then something else happens.
I think others do the same. It is the old 'what if' that is always there. What is the situation, what is the pressure, where is the force going, what is the opponent doing (how are they adjusting as well as how are you adjusting? We deal with what is actually happening and I believe you so as well. As that happens you will do something that in relation to the original move is not so efficient but is because of the every changing dynamics of fighting.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 31, 2016)

Danny T said:


> That is a possibility if he is so drunk as to be just stumbling around.
> I don't know your uncle Ed, my uncle Ed is just a hot head who looses his cool a lot. We don't just push him down and we don't just finish him.



I don't associate with drunks or hotheads, even if it were Uncle Ed. If he attacked me and I couldn't just drop him on the couch and leave, I would be fine ending his night early. Might upset Aunt Edith, but I'd probably be better off without them around.



> Yes this is a strong likely hood... And is why I specifically asked "even if you are unable to get away?"
> I'm still here having been stabbed in the right side (thought I had been punched). I stopped the guy by fighting back. So I reiterate the question. Even if you can not get away?



2nd Amendment or other equalizer is better than VT (more efficient too). 



> Agreed, "IF" the line is controlled or opened. If not then something else happens.



That something else doesn't have to be an abandonment of VT strategy. Some abandon principles at step 1.


----------



## KPM (Jan 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> KPM please stop trolling these threads.



I will defend myself when you guys keep calling me names and accusing me of things I didn't do.  So YOU stop trolling these threads with things of that nature and we won't have a problem!


----------



## Danny T (Jan 31, 2016)

LFJ said:


> If he attacked me and I couldn't just drop him on the couch and leave, I would be fine ending his night early. Might upset Aunt Edith, but I'd probably be better off without them around.


But you already stated you wouldn't use wc chun so again what would you use? (that you are fine with ending his night early with)



LFJ said:


> 2nd Amendment or other equalizer is better than VT (more efficient too).


Provided you had an equalizer and even more importantly could access it. What happens in the mean time?
You've been attacked you may have been stabbed and the guy is still attempting to introduce new holes in your body? Come now what do you do? The second amendment doesn't automatically place your firearm in your hand or any other equalizer. And even then you have to be able to deploy whatever. What allows that to happen for you? Your wc doesn't manifest in some form right? No footwork, no body movement or mechanics, no wc isn't used in any manner...


LFJ said:


> That something else doesn't have to be an abandonment of VT strategy. Some abandon principles at step 1.


...and some don't.

You are playing same aloof game in your answers as your complaints of others now.


----------



## mograph (Jan 31, 2016)

marques said:


> Efficiency = Power Out / Power In
> If you transmit all your power in your target (or you do what you want without power (energy...) losses), 100% efficiency. (what never happens) If you lose energy heating too much your body or contracting useless muscles, <100% efficiency obviously, but higher with "less and less" energy losses. If you miss your target (or a good target by chance), nearly 0% efficiency.


Agreed: it's akin to a _signal-to-noise_ metaphor. A process is efficient if the energy spent in actions in aid of its purpose (the signal) is greater than that spent in its actions contrary/orthogonal/irrelevant to its purpose. The punch moves from here-to-there very smoothly, without wavering or unnecessary tension, for example.

But _effectiveness_ is (mostly) unrelated to efficiency: it measures the _effect_ of the process on the object. It measures how much the opponent is affected by the technique: the opponent is stopped or injured, for example. If a punch killed the opponent, it could be argued that it is highly effective even though it may have involved a lot of tension and unnecessary movement. It could also be argued that such an effective punch might have to be delivered by a muscular hulk, while the thinner and lighter among us would need _efficiency_ to deliver such an effective punch, since we have limited physical resources.

I see a Venn diagram with two circles intersecting: one represents efficient techniques, the other represents effective techniques. A _good_ technique, useful to a broad range of martial artists, may lie in the intersection, being _both_ efficient and effective.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 31, 2016)

Danny T said:


> But you already stated you wouldn't use wc chun so again what would you use? (that you are fine with ending his night early with)



Lol, where are you trying to get with this? He's already said that silly drunk old uncle Ed would get pushed back down on the couch, no VT required, while nasty dangerous drunk uncle Ed would get treated just the same as any other violent attacker. I'm guessing in the second case that they wouldn't be invited back for Christmas next year. 

It is literally insane to try and split hairs and identify reasonably dangerous drunk uncle Ed that I still want to keep in touch with as the ideal victim for this kind of crazy wing chun as grappling/restraint thing the forum seems to want to give birth to. 




> Provided you had an equalizer and even more importantly could access it. What happens in the mean time?
> You've been attacked you may have been stabbed and the guy is still attempting to introduce new holes in your body? Come now what do you do? The second amendment doesn't automatically place your firearm in your hand or any other equalizer. And even then you have to be able to deploy whatever. What allows that to happen for you? Your wc doesn't manifest in some form right? No footwork, no body movement or mechanics, no wc isn't used in any manner.



As any other surprised potential murder victim you attempt to fight or plead for your life against massive odds, and 99 times out of 100 you lose and die. Not many people come off best against weapons without weapons. Just doesn't happen. Again not really a big gap into which wing chun can be inserted as the answer.



> You are playing same aloof game in your answers as your complaints of others now.



I think he's just being realistic. Why torture reality in these scenarios and assume you are going to get point by point replies?


----------



## geezer (Jan 31, 2016)

Mograph, You presented a good way of looking at it. Mechanical efficiency + effectiveness at accomplishing your objective = good technique.  I was using the term "efficiency" more broadly to describe accomplishing an objective with the least net input of energy ...or pretty much the same thing as what you defined as the intersection of simple mechanical efficiency and effectiveness i.e. "good technique".

Efficiency of a given technique is pretty simple to judge. What is far more complex is the _efficiency of a martial arts system._ Some martial arts aren't really "systems" at all, but rather a collection of techniques that cover a variety of situations executed with a particular flavor or flair. According to the perspective of my old WT sifu, this kind of martial art is more accurately referred to as a _"style"_. Other martial arts have greater degrees of coherence, being built on a unifying foundation of specific principles, and could merit the term "system". WC/VT is in this latter group, and IMO good WC/VT is one of the most tightly integrated martial systems out there. And, properly done it demonstrates a high level of _systemic efficiency._

Honestly, I've got a head-cold and attempting to explain WC's systemic efficiency is more than I'm up to. I will say that emphasis on this varies, but tends to be strong in all the WC lineages I have seen. I know that some of you guys believe very strongly that your particular branch has the most refined and effective systemic efficiency. Feel free to pick up from here. Or anybody else...


----------



## Danny T (Jan 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Lol, where are you trying to get with this? He's already said that silly drunk old uncle Ed would get pushed back down on the couch, no VT required, while nasty dangerous drunk uncle Ed would get treated just the same as any other violent attacker. I'm guessing in the second case that they wouldn't be invited back for Christmas next year.
> 
> It is literally insane to try and split hairs and identify reasonably dangerous drunk uncle Ed that I still want to keep in touch with as the ideal victim for this kind of crazy wing chun as grappling/restraint thing the forum seems to want to give birth to.


No what he said was: "I would not use VT on Uncle Ed."
He didn't say anything about him being drunk. I say I just push him down 'if he was stumbling drunk'.
So he nor you would use any of your wc training to prevent an angry attack by a relative. In your wc it is either take the guy out or it is do nothing other than leave or get beat up nothing in between. I find that a bit hard to believe but that is what my take away is with this.




guy b. said:


> As any other surprised potential murder victim you attempt to fight or plead for your life against massive odds, and 99 times out of 100 you lose and die. Not many people come off best against weapons without weapons. Just doesn't happen. Again not really a big gap into which wing chun can be inserted as the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> I think he's just being realistic. Why torture reality in these scenarios and assume you are going to get point by point replies?


 So you just die. Ok.
Actually far more people survive than die in bladed weapon attacks.
I'm not looking for a specific action one would do. But if in a situation where you were attacked with a weapon and you have nothing within your wc to fight back with then I can only assume you will die. I didn't say one would be unscathed. So you also would simply die or take the attack until the assailant broke it off and not even attempt to defend yourself.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 31, 2016)

Danny T said:


> So he nor you would use any of your wc training to prevent an angry attack by a relative. In your wc it is either take the guy out or it is do nothing other than leave or get beat up nothing in between. I find that a bit hard to believe but that is what my take away is with this.



I personally cannot imagine any scenario where I am attacked so violently by a relative that I need to use VT. Probably in any confrontation with a relative I would wrestle or judo them. If it escalated to the point where punching them was required then yes I would leave assuming I wanted to maintain any kind of relationship with them. 



> Actually far more people survive than die in bladed weapon attacks.
> I'm not looking for a specific action one would do. But if in a situation where you were attacked with a weapon and you have nothing within your wc to fight back with then I can only assume you will die. I didn't say one would be unscathed. So you also would simply die or take the attack until the assailant broke it off and not even attempt to defend yourself.



In a weapon attack assuming I am unarmed and surprised and cannot run away, yet see the blade and have time to do something about it, then I would probably attempt to grab or smother the knife hand and take the fight to the floor where I would hope that I would be able to use top position leverage to secure the blade or turn it upon the attacker. But this is silly conversation. Any knife wielding attacker that wanted me to die would in fact have killed me already. The majority of people that survive bladed weapon attacks are people that were not intended murder victims.


----------



## mograph (Jan 31, 2016)

geezer said:


> WC/VT is in this latter group, and IMO good WC/VT is one of the most tightly integrated martial systems out there. And, properly done it demonstrates a high level of _systemic efficiency._


Okay, now that's interesting: evaluating systemic efficiency. Get well soon, so we can dig into this!

Edit: off the top of my head, we could extrapolate the signal-to-noise model (feel free to suggest a better one) where, within a system, good (efficient and effective) techniques are "signal" and bad techniques are "noise." Improving the bad techniques or removing them from the system could serve to improve the efficiency of the system as a whole.


----------



## mograph (Jan 31, 2016)

Isn't aikido a system best-equipped to deal with attacks from Uncle Ed ... or an angry teenaged nephew at Thanksgiving?


----------



## geezer (Jan 31, 2016)

mograph said:


> Okay, now that's interesting: evaluating systemic efficiency. Get well soon, so we can dig into this!
> 
> Edit: off the top of my head, we could extrapolate the signal-to-noise model (feel free to suggest a better one) where, within a system, good (efficient and effective) techniques are "signal" and bad techniques are "noise." Improving the bad techniques or removing them from the system could serve to improve the efficiency of the system as a whole.



I'm back for the moment. Yeah, I like your model. I think that's basically what GM Yip Man tried to do, and I'll wager it's what WSL tried to do, due to his interest in actually fighting. I'll bet this explains more about why his VT is different from other Yip Man Students' than whether he was a particularly favored student.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 31, 2016)

geezer said:


> I'm back for the moment. Yeah, I like your model. I think that's basically what GM Yip Man tried to do, and I'll wager it's what WSL tried to do, due to his interest in actually fighting. I'll bet this explains more about why his VT is different from other Yip Man Students' than whether he was a particularly favored student.


And the outcome is something that was what worked best for them at that particular time. Doesn't mean it is what is best for all others. I'm also willing to bet if one were to be able to piece together all that was gleaned over the course of their advanced level of learning as well as what they instructed and how we would see several 'changes' along the way.


----------



## KPM (Jan 31, 2016)

^^^^ I agree with Steve and Danny both.  I've made that same point several times in other threads in regards to why WSL's Wing Chun is different from everyone else's.  That just lead to more denial and arguments from the dynamic duo!


----------



## guy b. (Jan 31, 2016)

mograph said:


> Edit: off the top of my head, we could extrapolate the signal-to-noise model (feel free to suggest a better one) where, within a system, good (efficient and effective) techniques are "signal" and bad techniques are "noise." Improving the bad techniques or removing them from the system could serve to improve the efficiency of the system as a whole.



Wing chun is not a technique based system.

I am not aware of the ideas of wing chun having changed recently. Noise reduction amounts only to removing contradiction and confusion in wing chun.


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Wing chun is not a technique based system.
> 
> I am not aware of the ideas of wing chun having changed recently. Noise reduction amounts only to removing contradiction and confusion in wing chun.



maybe 'techniques' could be replaced with 'drills', 'methods', concepts/principles, training goals etc?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 31, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> maybe 'techniques' could be replaced with 'drills', 'methods', concepts/principles, training goals etc?



Do you think any of these have been changed recently?


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Do you think any of these have been changed recently?



Don't know. Who can say?
On another forum, I saw a Moy Yat drill that, to me, looked very much like "noise". With a few tweaks, it could be so much more. But, I suspect that this is the case between wing chun families as a whole.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 31, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> On another forum, I saw a Moy Yat drill that, to me, looked very much like "noise". With a few tweaks, it could be so much more



Noise in a concept/principle based system is a matter of removing extraneous info, contradiction, and lack of clarity


----------



## mograph (Jan 31, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> maybe 'techniques' could be replaced with 'drills', 'methods', concepts/principles, training goals etc?


I think so. I was using the term in a general sense, that is, "thing done." 
Element or component, maybe.


----------



## geezer (Jan 31, 2016)

Guy reiterated his position that, "Wing chun is not a technique based system". So we could discuss "efficiency of concept" which could get very vague and confusing, or analyze efficiency as expressed through technique. The concept should be evident in any application. 

For example, when you use a punch both to deflect an oncoming punch and to strike to center from the outside gate (da sau jik si siu sau or "attacking hand' is defending hand) the specific application is expressing several concepts relating to efficiency: straight-line attack=shortest distance, no-blocking, chasing center not hands, one hand controlling two (yat fook yee), "collision principle" (your opponents forward energy is added to yours, increasing the force of your punch), and so forth.

So although the art should not be technique based, good technique should reflect the conceptual base.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 31, 2016)

geezer said:


> Guy reiterated his position that, "Wing chun is not a technique based system". So we could discuss "efficiency of concept" which could get very vague and confusing, or analyze efficiency as expressed through technique. The concept should be evident in any application.
> 
> For example, when you use a punch both to deflect an oncoming punch and to strike to center from the outside gate (da sau jik si siu sau or "attacking hand' is defending hand) the specific application is expressing several concepts relating to efficiency: straight-line attack=shortest distance, no-blocking, chasing center not hands, one hand controlling two (yat fook yee), "collision principle" (your opponents forward energy is added to yours, increasing the force of your punch), and so forth.
> 
> So although the art should not be technique based, good technique should reflect the conceptual base.



It is fine to look at movement in terms of underlying concept, as long as you are clear in your minds what that is. There are infinite movements, few ideas. Easier to focus on the underlying ideas, IMO


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 31, 2016)

geezer said:


> Guy reiterated his position that, "Wing chun is not a technique based system". So we could discuss "efficiency of concept" which could get very vague and confusing, or analyze efficiency as expressed through technique. The concept should be evident in any application.
> 
> For example, when you use a punch both to deflect an oncoming punch and to strike to center from the outside gate (da sau jik si siu sau or "attacking hand' is defending hand) the specific application is expressing several concepts relating to efficiency: straight-line attack=shortest distance, no-blocking, chasing center not hands, one hand controlling two (yat fook yee), "collision principle" (your opponents forward energy is added to yours, increasing the force of your punch), and so forth.
> 
> So although the art should not be technique based, good technique should reflect the conceptual base.


So, efficiency is like "Chaining: well? And, yeah, techniques should reflect your base, not the other way around.


----------



## geezer (Jan 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> It is fine to look at movement in terms of underlying concept, as long as you are clear in your minds what that is. There are infinite movements, few ideas. Easier to focus on the underlying ideas, IMO



I agree. But as you and LFJ like to point out, concepts are abstract. Techniques are not. So, IMO it's often easier to explain concepts as they are applied through a tangible technique.

To avoid needless argument, let me illustrate this using another concept-based art that is_ not _WC.  I also teach Eskrima. My main influences were Latosa Escrima Concepts and Torres DTE.
Three core concepts expressed in Torres DTE are: Forward Intent, Getting an Angle (superior relative position), and "Diamondpoint" (pinpoint redirection with no wasted motion).

When we practice, I'll frequently have students analyze a failed technique in terms of _which of these three is lacking. _Then I have them adjust what they do to conform to the concept, and _voila! _the technique becomes effective. As you said, few concepts, infinite techniques.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 31, 2016)

Danny T said:


> But you already stated you wouldn't use wc chun so again what would you use? (that you are fine with ending his night early with)



Obviously a solid VT punch if he were seriously attacking me and sober enough not to just be dropped on the couch so I can leave the room.

Luckily I don't have any violent relatives, but I wouldn't mind cutting ties with an idiot like that.

If it's just drunk Uncle Ed being stupid I wouldn't use VT.



> Provided you had an equalizer and even more importantly could access it. What happens in the mean time?



In a situation where I'm forced to go barehanded against a knife attack, I'd likely use things from different MAs and tactics designed specifically for that situation by people with experience.

What I wouldn't do is use VT or try to invent some modified VT on the spot. For what? To be able to claim VT has answers for everything and works unarmed against knife attacks?

That's not being realistic. That's being a True Believer, and more than likely a Dead Idiot for thinking you can "kung fu" a knife attacker.



> You are playing same aloof game in your answers as your complaints of others now.



You are playing the same scenario game as KPM. You want me to give you a play by play of how a fight is gonna go? VT doesn't work like that.


----------



## Phobius (Jan 31, 2016)

LFJ said:


> In a situation where I'm forced to go barehanded against a knife attack, I'd likely use things from different MAs and tactics designed specifically for that situation by people with experience.
> 
> What I wouldn't do is use VT or try to invent some modified VT on the spot. For what? To be able to claim VT has answers for everything and works unarmed against knife attacks?
> 
> That's not being realistic. That's being a True Believer, and more than likely a Dead Idiot for thinking you can "kung fu" a knife attacker.



No, if you train enough WC/VT it will be a natural instinct when pushed up against a wall to use it. If that is not the case it says nothing about your art but about how you drilled it. Adding a knife to a fight just means both will get hurt badly. Some things in WC/VT will perhaps make things a bit worse than other more knife defense art related stuff would. But it is body structure, punching, movement and everything else all the same.

A knife fight is not the time to mix other martial arts to a big pile. And in some cases it is just better to suprise your attacker. Anyone ever thought how he would react if you curled up like a ball and just started crying intensely with tears and everything. Who besides from 1-2 psychopaths could maintain balance enough to stab that guy?


----------



## LFJ (Feb 1, 2016)

You do whatever it takes. But don't be stupid. Good luck!


----------



## KPM (Feb 1, 2016)

LFJ said:


> You are playing the same scenario game as KPM. You want me to give you a play by play of how a fight is gonna go? VT doesn't work like that.


 
Funny how you can chose to apply a double standard when it suits you.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Feb 1, 2016)

LFJ said:


> You are playing the same scenario game as KPM. You want me to give you a play by play of how a fight is gonna go? VT doesn't work like that.



No, but consistently pointing out others thoughts as being in error, or as things that you *wouldn't* do, while never enlightening anyone as to what you actually *might* do.... is a pretty one-sided discussion. It's analogous to if I went _out of my way_ to tell a co-worker they did something wrong, or that they were lacking key strategy in their thinking, to then just walk away and tell them to go ask the boss how to do it right if they want to. Even if I am correct.... what's the blanking point?


----------



## LFJ (Feb 1, 2016)

PiedmontChun said:


> No, but consistently pointing out others thoughts as being in error, or as things that you *wouldn't* do, while never enlightening anyone as to what you actually *might* do.... is a pretty one-sided discussion.



I actually explained nothing but my own ideas in my first post on this topic. 

People wanted to then lead the discussion into scenarios and precisely what I'd do if if if...


----------



## Phobius (Feb 1, 2016)

Just ignore this post. I regretted even writing it.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 1, 2016)

Makes me think of this

*Lengthen Your LineBy Joe Hyams *
_Taken from his book 'ZEN IN THE MARTIAL ARTS'_

I first met with Kenpo Karate master Ed Parker in 1952 in a Beverly Hills gym where he rented space. A handsome, six-foot-tall Hawaiian with a thick thatch of black hair, Parker reminded me of a huge tree, with arms like powerful boughs and bare feet rooted firmly on the canvas mat (despite his size, he is a whirlwind in motion). 


He was wearing an old, loose-fitting GI, a two-piece cotton uniform worn by most martial artists. The GI, like his black belt, was white in places from fraying and repeated launderings. His face was serene and peaceful, as though he had just completed meditating.

I will remember one of my initial sessions at his dojo in Los Angeles where I was practising Kumite (sparring) with a more skilful opponent. To make up for my lack of knowledge and experience, I tried deceptive, tricky moves that were readily countered. I was outclassed, and Parker watched me get roundly trounced. When the match was over I was dejected. Parker invited me into his small office; a small sparsely furnished room with only a scarred desk and battered chairs. "Why are you so upset? " he asked. "Because I couldn't score." Parker got up from behind the desk and with a piece of chalk drew a line on the floor about five feet long. "How can you make this line shorter?" he asked. "I studied the line and gave him several answers, including cutting the line in many pieces. He shook his head and drew a second line, longer than the first. "Now how does the first line look? "Shorter,'' I said. Parker nodded. "It is always better to improve and strengthen your own line or knowledge than to try and cut your opponent's line." 

He accompanied me to the door and added, "Think about what I have just said." I did think about it and studied hard for the next several months, developing greater skills, increasing my knowledge and ability. The next time I went on the mat with the same opponent, he, too, had improved. But I fared far better than I had previously because I had raised my level of knowledge as well as developing my skills.

Not long after, I realised I could apply the principal Parker had taught me to my tennis game. An avid weekend tennis player, I frequently found myself pitted against better players, and when things started to go badly for me on the court I often resorted to trickery - slicing the ball, trying to hit it with a spin, attempting difficult drop shots. Invariably I lost and was frustrated. Instead of trying to better my game I was trying to "cut their line.'' I recognised that I had to play to my best ability rather than to try to worsen my opponent's play. Keeping Parker's advice in my mind, my game soon improved. It has been nearly three decades since then, and in the intervening years Parker has taught his art to thousands of students. Even long after their training they think of him as a good friend - and as a wise and gentle sifu who embodies the martial arts spirit and philosophy.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 1, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Obviously a solid VT punch if he were seriously attacking me and sober enough not to just be dropped on the couch so I can leave the room.
> 
> Luckily I don't have any violent relatives, but I wouldn't mind cutting ties with an idiot like that.
> 
> If it's just drunk Uncle Ed being stupid I wouldn't use VT.


So if the situation was such you would use wc. Thanks, that is what my question was.



LFJ said:


> In a situation where I'm forced to go barehanded against a knife attack, I'd likely use things from different MAs and tactics designed specifically for that situation by people with experience.
> 
> What I wouldn't do is use VT or try to invent some modified VT on the spot. For what? To be able to claim VT has answers for everything and works unarmed against knife attacks?
> 
> That's not being realistic. That's being a True Believer, and more than likely a Dead Idiot for thinking you can "kung fu" a knife attacker.


Again thank you for your answer.
What would you recommend to those persons who don't train in other specifically designed MAs or have any experience in such to do in a situation as a knife attack? Forget anything you've learned about wc, no footwork, no angling, no controlling of the line. Maybe just do something natural as long as it isn't wc.



LFJ said:


> You are playing the same scenario game as KPM. You want me to give you a play by play of how a fight is gonna go? VT doesn't work like that.


Thanks again. No wasn't asking for a play by play and you did respond & answer in the about response about you doing some other MA.

A reason I asked was that the training I've had in wc there is quite a bit of bladed weapon training and defense. I find wc an excellent bladed weapon defensive art 'when' trained for it. (note: I would leave and highly recommend getting away as quickly as possible when confronted by a bladed weapon.) But then that is my advise in any physical confrontation, don't be there.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 1, 2016)

Danny T said:


> A reason I asked was that the training I've had in wc there is quite a bit of bladed weapon training and defense. I find wc an excellent bladed weapon defensive art 'when' trained for it. (note: I would leave and highly recommend getting away as quickly as possible when confronted by a bladed weapon.) But then that is my advise in any physical confrontation, don't be there.



What do you emphasise in terms of bladed weapon defense?


----------



## Danny T (Feb 1, 2016)

guy b. said:


> What do you emphasise in terms of bladed weapon defense?


Don't get cut or stabbed. ESCAPE.
Evade,
Stun,
Create distance,
Position,
Escape.

IF that isn't possible. Intercept, strike the core. Control the core through the attacking limb, attack the core then escape.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 1, 2016)

Danny T said:


> What would you recommend to those persons who don't train in other specifically designed MAs or have any experience in such to do in a situation as a knife attack?



Fortunately, most people will rarely be involved in a knife attack. So there is time to go learn realistic tactics from people with experience training for and dealing with that situation specifically, if that is one of your concerns.  



> A reason I asked was that the training I've had in wc there is quite a bit of bladed weapon training and defense. I find wc an excellent bladed weapon defensive art 'when' trained for it.



We are knife fighters, when we have knives, and we learn evasive footwork and such that can carry over to empty hand where necessary, but honestly, VT was not designed for empty hand vs knife.

The reality is that there is nothing that will absolutely work. Some things are more functional than others, but given the incredible odds we'd be facing, I wouldn't want to rely on advice from a kung fu class above guys who train for that situation specifically and have tons of _experience_, like say, military.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 1, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Fortunately, most people will rarely be involved in a knife attack. So there is time to go learn realistic tactics from people with experience training for and dealing with that situation specifically, if that is one of your concerns.


A non answer.
Fortunately, most people will rarely be involved in fight at all.




LFJ said:


> We are knife fighters, when we have knives, and we learn evasive footwork and such that can carry over to empty hand where necessary, but honestly, VT was not designed for empty hand vs knife.


But is an excellent edged weapon defensive art though not originally designed as such. 



LFJ said:


> The reality is that there is nothing that will absolutely work. Some things are more functional than others, but given the incredible odds we'd be facing, I wouldn't want to rely on advice from a kung fu class above guys who train for that situation specifically and have tons of _experience_, like say, military.


Agreed on the; ...there is nothing that will absolutely work.
Get good training from those who know. Agreed again. WC, when trained well, is an excellent edged weapon defensive art. 

Be careful about training with military people. There are far more military trained personnel who have little to no edged weapon experience than that do.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> A non answer.
> Fortunately, most people will rarely be involved in fight at all.



Giving you plenty of time to get some intelligent training from a good source.



> But is an excellent edged weapon defensive art though not originally designed as such.



Which art?



> Be careful about training with military people. There are far more military trained personnel who have little to no edged weapon experience than that do.



I'd rather rely on the advice and tactics a country with a lot of experience teaches to people it sends into war, than any traditional kung fu class where they usually can't even get a realistic attack right.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Don't get cut or stabbed. ESCAPE.
> Evade,
> Stun,
> Create distance,
> ...



You prefer to attack the body rather than the hand?


----------



## Danny T (Feb 2, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Giving you plenty of time to get some intelligent training from a good source.


But is no help for the wc trained person who is right now in the situation as a knife attack? Why are you skipping around the question or deflecting. What is the person to do? May have to tell the attacker to return at a later date so he/she can have the time to get intelligent training from a good source. If you don't know how to use your wc training vs a blade it is ok. I can accept that. Many wc people are not experienced in using their wc in such a manner. If you have trained edge weapon defense other than wc and you feel you would use that rather than your wc that is all good. So are you meaning the wc person who has no other training and is presently being attacked has nothing within his/her training to be utilized for edged weapon defense?
If so I am glad I don't train your WSL wc.



LFJ said:


> Which art?


You referenced wc I was responding to your reference.




LFJ said:


> I'd rather rely on the advice and tactics a country with a lot of experience teaches to people it sends into war, than any traditional kung fu class where they usually can't even get a realistic attack right.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 2, 2016)

guy b. said:


> You prefer to attack the body rather than the hand?


Intercept the attack, while counter-attacking the core.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> What is the person to do?



Have they done the bjd form or are they still on CK?

I agree with LFJ, it is a bit of a tortured hypothetical. If you are worried about knife attacks then tried and tested ways exist to increase the odds of survival.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> So are you meaning the wc person who has no other training and is presently being attacked has nothing within his/her training to be utilized for edged weapon defense?



Maybe they do, maybe they don't. From what I've seen from most WC, they probably don't.



> You referenced wc I was responding to your reference.



VT wasn't designed for empty hand vs knife.

Your WC was "originally designed for" that?

I'd like to see what you train, because when I look around at other WC knife defense, it's the typical unrealistic lunge and thrust while they kung fu them.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 2, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Maybe they do, maybe they don't. From what I've seen from most WC, they probably don't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok stay with me here…

You stated: “…but honestly, VT was not designed for empty hand vs knife” my response was: “But is an excellent edged weapon defensive art though not originally designed as such.”



LFJ said:


> I'd like to see what you train, because when I look around at other WC knife defense, it's the typical unrealistic lunge and thrust while they kung fu them.



I am a long time Pekiti-Tirsia Kali practitioner as well as WC. Pekiti is an edged weapon system with close quarter knife defense and counter-attacking being the main emphasis of the system after learning, footwork, target striking with a stick and empty hands from the longer ranges working to close range and back out. Funny thing is the very first targets learned from stick, sword, knife, to empty hand are the head, the body, the groin, the neck, the eyes and all strikes are into the core.
At the longer ranges the primary target is the hand, secondary is the elbow, tertiary (at long range) is the knee but they are targeted by attacking to the core not by chasing the limb.

I began studying PTK because of my interest in edged weapons. The training began with sticks but with an emphasis on being an edged weapon as well as being an impact weapon. It was very different other than the stance and weight distribution being very similar. The footwork and angles were large moves and of course the range was different. Attacking the core was always emphasized. As I grew and began to learn knife work the more and more the two system’s moves, positions, and applications converged. The principles are for the most part the same. The close range footwork, structures, and applications are very much the same. Tuhon Gaje’ (the heir to the system and man who brought PTK to the US) said when viewing, for the first time, a couple of people training and playing wc he was surprised and want to know how did they know Pekiti and from where did they get it. Not everything is the same for that's for sure but wc when trained as such is an excellent edged weapon art even though it wasn't originally designed with that intent.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> I am a long time Pekiti-Tirsia Kali practitioner as well as WC. Pekiti is an edged weapon system with close quarter knife defense and counter-attacking being the main emphasis of the system after learning, footwork, target striking with a stick and empty hands from the longer ranges working to close range and back out.



Would you say that wing chun is more or less useful than PTK as a knife defense method?


----------



## geezer (Feb 2, 2016)

Another similarity between WC and Pekiti:  _politics._


----------



## wckf92 (Feb 2, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Would you say that wing chun is more or less useful than PTK as a knife defense method?



This should prove to be an interesting topic........perhaps this could be its own thread? (i.e. WC / PTK, etc). ?


----------



## geezer (Feb 2, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Would you say that wing chun is more or less useful than PTK as a knife defense method?



Which knives? WC does pretty well with the BCD. The problem is that training is held back so long, it's hard to build real competence. For that reason alone, I favor Eskrima. And within FMA, PTK is especially blade oriented. By contrast, the WC most of us train in primarily hand to hand, not hand to blade.


----------



## geezer (Feb 2, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> This should prove to be an interesting topic........perhaps this could be its own thread? (i.e. WC / PTK, etc). ?



Great idea. I gotta get back to work, so you start it, WCK.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 2, 2016)

geezer said:


> Another similarity between WC and Pekiti:  _politics._


That is certainly true depending upon the circle you are in.


----------



## geezer (Feb 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> That is certainly true depending upon the circle you are in.



Yeah. One of the guys I train under was involved with Bill McGrath for a while, many years ago. He is now a Senior Instructor in Torres DTE. He highly respects the skill of GM Gaje, and others, but has no stomach for the politics. Just the way I feel about WC/VT.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 2, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Would you say that wing chun is more or less useful than PTK as a knife defense method?


From my experience they can be much the same.
But that would be based upon the intent of the training.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 2, 2016)

geezer said:


> Which knives? WC does pretty well with the BCD. The problem is that training is held back so long, it's hard to build real competence. For that reason alone, I favor Eskrima. And within FMA, PTK is especially blade oriented. By contrast, the WC most of us train in primarily hand to hand, not hand to blade.



I would say that BJD doesn't necessarily take a long time to reach. WSL VT moves things forward quite fast in general. It is more a process of getting everything quite fast then spending a lifetime polishing errors than spending a lifetime chasing the elusive secret form. The idea is that if you take to long to get material you develop incorrectly. 

In terms of effectiveness I am talking empty hands vs weapon. Wing chun has some weapon ideas when armed, but not sure t has much when unarmed. BJD footwork and tactics might help I guess, but then you aren't holding knives so idea of targeting arms not nearly as effective.


----------



## geezer (Feb 2, 2016)

Guy,  I _agree_ with what you say. By contrast, in the "WT" system, the long pole, and especially the BCD are held back for a very long time, typically until a student is a fully recognized Sifu nearing "practitioner" (master) level within the system, and then often taught at a _very high price_. IMO when learned "secretly" by so few so late, the techniques are diminished in value. Even after all these years I have never learned the entire "WT" BCD form. And if I had, of what use would it be when I've already pretty much developed my fighting instincts based on fundamentals learned ages ago. TBH my functional weapons skills owe more to my Escrima training than to my limited BCD work.


----------



## KPM (Feb 2, 2016)

^^^^ I don't think you've missed out on much Steve.  FMA blade work is much better than most people's BJD that I've seen.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> You stated: “…but honestly, VT was not designed for empty hand vs knife” my response was: “But is an excellent edged weapon defensive art though not originally designed as such.”



Okay, maybe you're not expressing what you think you are. 

"Is it not" means you think it is, but then you later say the opposite;

"_wc when trained as such is an excellent edged weapon art even though it wasn't originally designed with that intent._"



> I am a long time Pekiti-Tirsia Kali practitioner as well as WC.



You seem to be describing knife vs knife.

VT knife fighting is indeed excellent, but I thought we were talking empty hand vs knife which is _entirely_ different.

I wouldn't use VT for that because even if you "_intercept the attack, while counter-attacking the core_", a drugged out maniac could just keep right on spazzing out with their knife all over you if you don't knock them out cold. They can take hits and keep coming.

If you don't get control of the knife hand (which could be switched instantly and imperceptibly) and knock them out quickly you'll be standup wrestling for control and trying to counter-attack while getting cut to shreds. Not a good deal.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 3, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Okay, maybe you're not expressing what you think you are.
> 
> "Is it not" means you think it is, but then you later say the opposite;
> 
> "_wc when trained as such is an excellent edged weapon art even though it wasn't originally designed with that intent._"


Let's see now.
It was originally designed with the intent of empty hand vs empty hand. Weaponry was a concern and incorporated. It evolved.
The principles, concepts, movements, structures, force vectors all work very well in an empty hand vs knife situation if train for that situation. So even though when originally designed for one aspect of fighting (empty hand vs empty hand) if trained with an emphasis and against a knife it is an excellent edged weapon art.
For example, the drug Viagra... was originally formulated and developed by Pfizer for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. The intent for Viagra was for the heart. During clinical trials it was found to have a huge influence in males with erectile dysfunction. Though developed and intended for one thing it is excellent for something else.



LFJ said:


> You seem to be describing knife vs knife.
> 
> VT knife fighting is indeed excellent, but I thought we were talking empty hand vs knife which is _entirely_ different.


I am discussing empty hand vs knife.

Pekiti's highest level is empty hand vs multiple opponents with multiple weapons and its basic knife level begins with empty hand vs knife then goes through knife vs knife up to double knife vs double knife and finally returns to empty hand vs multiple opponents with multiple knives.
I am talking about empty hand vs knife.


----------



## KPM (Feb 3, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Okay, maybe you're not expressing what you think you are.
> 
> "Is it not" means you think it is, but then you later say the opposite;
> 
> ...


 
Danny, I for one had no problem understanding exactly what you were saying.  I don't think you contradicted yourself at all.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 3, 2016)

Danny T said:


> The principles, concepts, movements, structures, force vectors all work very well in an empty hand vs knife situation if train for that situation.



Hmm, VT empty hand and knife strategies are for the most part opposites.

VT knife strategy without knives against knives is pretty useless. 
VT empty hand strategy against knives is pretty bold / probably suicidal.

Can't say your Viagra explanation has sold me on the idea of adapting something to fill a purpose that is already filled by more tried and tested methods.



> Pekiti's highest level is empty hand vs multiple opponents with multiple weapons...
> ...empty hand vs multiple opponents with multiple knives.



Seriously? Sounds like a movie. Lots of awesome choreography involved, I'm sure?


----------



## Danny T (Feb 3, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Hmm, VT empty hand and knife strategies are for the most part opposites.
> 
> VT knife strategy without knives against knives is pretty useless.
> VT empty hand strategy against knives is pretty bold / probably suicidal.
> ...


Strategy is one thing tactics is what get the job done.

Very little adapting is required. The tactics are already there; in a well trained wc person.

Empty hand against knives is about survival and not getting dead. No it isn't a movie or choreography. But is about good training and practicing under hard pressure. Like everything else the demonstrations for learning and passing on a basic understanding is choreographed. The drills are choreographed. The pressure testing is random and aggressive...Yes we get caught, cut, sliced & diced. But it is about how to survive long enough to get away. Already stated ESCAPE Immediately.
I never stated you will walk away uninjured. Just as in an empty hand confrontation wc skills and knowledge doesn't mean you will not get hit or not get injured not matter how good it is.

Not selling anything. I simply stated although wc wasn't originally designed for one aspect of fighting it's methodology happens to be excellent for another. It works for me and many others as well. If not for you...Ok it's all good on my end.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 3, 2016)

Interesting. Most Wing Chun people can't fight one guy empty hand vs empty hand too well, so you understand my suspicion when you start talking about empty hand vs multiple attackers with multiple weapons including knives. 

You asked me what if I can't escape against one knife attacker. Now you're talking about escaping immediately from multiple knife attackers while unarmed? Hmm.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 3, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Interesting. Most Wing Chun people can't fight one guy empty hand vs empty hand too well, so you understand my suspicion when you start talking about empty hand vs multiple attackers with multiple weapons including knives.


Shortly trained, low level trained, and poorly trained wc people can't fight. 
And they would do poorly against a knife attack. 
Agreed.



LFJ said:


> You asked me what if I can't escape against one knife attacker. Now you're talking about escaping immediately from multiple knife attackers while unarmed? Hmm.


LOL.
Where did I ask that.
And I never stated anything about escaping immediately from multiple attackers of any kind unharmed. I never stated anything about getting out of any fight situation 'unharmed'. I never alluded to being unharmed. 

I did write what following.


Danny T said:


> ...it is about how to survive long enough to get away. Already stated ESCAPE Immediately.
> I never stated you will walk away uninjured. Just as in an empty hand confrontation wc skills and knowledge doesn't mean you will not get hit or not get injured not matter how good it is.


----------



## Cephalopod (Feb 3, 2016)

Disregarding all the he said / he said nonsense...

It seems there was an interesting point of  debate:
When all other options have been exhausted and you are forced to combat, unarmed, an assailant with a knife...should you:
a) attempt to control the weapon and the arm that wields it or
b) attempt to evade/deflect the weapon to clear an attack path to the assailant's core

The most sage advice I have ever received regarding knife fighting: Imagine yourself covered with blood. Now imagine that it's _your_ blood. Now get comfortable with that idea and do what needs to be done.

Option a) sounds really nice and if you feel that you have a HUGE advantage of skill and ability over your assailant you might pull it off. But if a) goes south, if the attacker starts wildly and desperately slashing (something that doesn't often get trained against in many anti-knife classes) then you'd better switch to option b) pretty damn quick.
You're going to get cut regardless but your best chance of survival is to blast up the center and incapacitate the man not the arm. Then you can tend to your wounds.

Holy carp, I really hope I don't end up in this situation.


----------



## Cephalopod (Feb 3, 2016)

I would argue that option b) is also the most_ efficient_ approach to the problem.
[Tips hat to OP]


----------



## KPM (Feb 3, 2016)

Cephalopod said:


> I would argue that option b) is also the most_ efficient_ approach to the problem.
> [Tips hat to OP]



Unless you end up dead!


----------



## LFJ (Feb 3, 2016)

Danny T said:


> > You asked me what if I can't escape against one knife attacker. Now you're talking about escaping immediately from multiple knife attackers while unarmed? Hmm.
> 
> 
> LOL.
> ...



I didn't say "unharmed" either. Unarmed means not carrying any weapons.

To my response about not using VT empty hand vs one knife attacker, you asked;

Post #17 "_Even if you are unable to get away?_"

Then you later started talking about;

Post #90 "_empty hand vs multiple opponents with multiple knives._"

I said this sounds like a movie. Then you said;

Post #93 "_it is about how to survive long enough to get away. Already stated ESCAPE Immediately._"

So first, you ask me about what if I'm unable to get away from _one_ knife attacker.

Now you say you're going to survive long enough to get away while _unarmed_ against _multiple_ opponents with _multiple_ knives!

Hmmmmm...


----------



## Danny T (Feb 3, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I didn't say "unharmed" either. Unarmed means not carrying any weapons.
> 
> To my response about not using VT empty hand vs one knife attacker, you asked;
> 
> ...


You are correct. I miss read and I apologize.

Yes we train unarmed vs multiple opponents with multiple knives.
And yes it is a total waste of time and energy. We will beginning today not fighting back and allow ourselves to die for no one has ever survived an edged weapon attack much less an attack with multiple opponents. 

I don't want to be in another knife attack but I do train for that possibility and I do so within the wc training i
I certainly don't want to ever be in a multiple opponent with multiple weapons attack but I do train for that possibility.
I'm will run and get away first 'if' that is the best possibility.
I will fight to be able to get away.
I will fight to survive to be able to get away.
I will fight to survive.
I will fight until I can no longer fight.

Others I assume are willing to only die.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 4, 2016)

Willing to fight or not, if you are unarmed and unable to escape from multiple attackers with multiple weapons/knives, you're pretty well screwed.

It's pure fantasy to believe you're going to fight all these guys off with your Wing Chun. But if that makes you feel better, go on. Fortunately, none of us will likely ever be found in such a situation. So, have fun training whatever you want.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 4, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Willing to fight or not, if you are unarmed and unable to escape from multiple attackers with multiple weapons/knives, you're pretty well screwed.
> 
> It's pure fantasy to believe you're going to fight all these guys off with your Wing Chun. But if that makes you feel better, go on. Fortunately, none of us will likely ever be found in such a situation. So, have fun training whatever you want.



Actually you are wrong, people have survived such attacks. The key aspect here is not to win the fight, it is to survive. Using a will to fight could make your opponents realize the gravity of the situation, more often than not it is just one or two real psychopaths and the rest just wanted to be cool. Often the rest are not interested in delivering a lethal blow but rather be present in case their leader does so they themselves are not called chicken.

Again not to come out as a winner but to get stabbed in such a way that you may survive all the way to the hospital.

I think people train multiple opponent not for fighting multiple opponents but because being in odds where there is no chance of winning you have easier way to learn how to handle defeat and build/maintain your willpower to fight for your life no matter the odds. Something sadly not present in most people when convinced they are soon to be dead.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 4, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Actually you are wrong, people have survived such attacks.



Who?


----------



## PiedmontChun (Feb 4, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Actually you are wrong, people have survived such attacks. The key aspect here is not to win the fight, it is to survive. Using a will to fight could make your opponents realize the gravity of the situation, more often than not it is just one or two real psychopaths and the rest just wanted to be cool. Often the rest are not interested in delivering a lethal blow but rather be present in case their leader does so they themselves are not called chicken.
> 
> Again not to come out as a winner but to get stabbed in such a way that you may survive all the way to the hospital.
> 
> I think people train multiple opponent not for fighting multiple opponents but because being in odds where there is no chance of winning you have easier way to learn how to handle defeat and build/maintain your willpower to fight for your life no matter the odds. Something sadly not present in most people when convinced they are soon to be dead.



In my mind, the benefit of training fighting against multiple attackers is the application-based footwork practice. But mostly, training to fight multiple attackers just helps learn how to fight, evade, and ultimately exit a situation better, not come out on top as a winner. And I am ok with that. 'Live to fight another day' and all that, yeah?


----------



## Danny T (Feb 4, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Willing to fight or not, if you are unarmed and unable to escape from multiple attackers with multiple weapons/knives, you're pretty well screwed.


Again you are correct.
Fortunately most will never be attacked but if one's only skill set is wc and happens to be attacked with an edged weapon and is in a situation where one can not immediately get away don't use the skill set you have because wc will not help get you to a position where you may escape. Abandon your knowledge and skills. You will probably not survive.

Worse if in a multiple person with multiple weapons again you are screwed. No need to have trained, no need to attempt to survive. Just die. 

Training for an edged weapon attack and to survive is but a lesson in futility.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 4, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Who?



Sorry, missread it somehow as you are not going to survive. Of course one is screwed in such scenario, not like someone enjoys the aspect of soon being badly wounded or in worst case not survive the night


----------



## LFJ (Feb 5, 2016)

Train what you want and have fun. My final thoughts;
_
Empty hand vs knife when you can't just escape_:

There are more tried and tested methods than adapting Wing Chun. And there is time for anyone to learn that if it is a concern, given the rarity of such attacks. Why limit yourself to Wing Chun just to be able to say your style can deal with everything?

_Empty hand vs multiple knife attackers when you can't just escape_: 

Fortunately, more of a movie scenario or many people just hate you. If you survive this it will be because they decided to stop attacking and left you to die and you were only extremely lucky to survive your injuries. It will not be because you kung fu'd them all off of you.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 5, 2016)

Noone said limit yourself to. Heck I dont even know if anyone explicitly said it had to be WC besides you. The question was whether to do nothing or to use WC. If you have nothing else it is better to do WC than doing nothing. Not the other way around, as WC does have some help towards knife fighting (And some key elements which should never be done such as giving the opponent access to inside of your arms unless you wish to bleed out)


----------



## Isaiah90 (Apr 30, 2016)

geezer said:


> It's often stated that _efficiency _is a core concept, perhaps even _the _core concept of WC. But efficiency can mean a lot of things. On another thread, LFJ pointed out that it is _not_ the same thing as effectiveness. All Martial Arts seek effectiveness, yet not all stress maximum efficiency. Effectiveness is "getting the job done", while efficiency is "getting the job done for the _least input_". But that can mean many things. It isn't just "getting the most bang for your buck" or "the highest mileage". There are many kinds of efficiency. There's the efficiency of _time_, the efficiency of_ movement_, the efficiency of _energy_, and even the efficiency of _training methods_. All are, to some degree interrelated, and all are considered -- at least in my WC/VT though all are not stressed equally. In my experience, the emphasis and understanding of "efficiency" what it is and how it should be achieved varies a lot between WC/VT lineages and branches.
> 
> So what is_ your_ concept of efficiency?



Efficiency to me means accomplishing a task with the least amount of energy, time, movement, etc. while it may not be effective. For example, i'd much rather dodge an insanely powerful kick than make contact with a chop or a kick of my own and then make my attack. One of the most essential principles in Wing Chun is the economy of motion. I always want to use no more than necessary to end a fight. I could break my opponent's limbs to effectively stop a fight but then i would have less energy to defend myself if another opponent attacks. Effectiveness and efficiency go hand in hand but sometimes you have to sacrifice effectiveness for efficiency for whatever you are trying to accomplish namely survival.


----------

