# Anyone recognize this?



## KPM (Mar 11, 2017)

Does anyone recognize this dummy form?


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2017)

How about this knife form?


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2017)

Maybe this one is easier to spot?


----------



## Marnetmar (Mar 11, 2017)

Ha, that's cool! I might steal this idea from you if you don't mind


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 11, 2017)

Very cool. If I had a form like that, I'd definitely teach folks those variations as they progressed.


----------



## yak sao (Mar 11, 2017)

Nice innovation


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 11, 2017)

Pretty good for only 3 weekends of training


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 11, 2017)

dudewingchun said:


> Pretty good for only 3 weekends of training


I thought it was 3 days.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 11, 2017)

Hi Kieth,

Is this the William Cheung version of Chum Kiu, done solo on dummy & with knives? Or is this your own innovation? Either way I like the utilitarian concept.


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> Hi Kieth,
> 
> Is this the William Cheung version of Chum Kiu, done solo on dummy & with knives? Or is this your own innovation? Either way I like the utilitarian concept.



Yes.  This is the Traditional Wing Chun Chum Kiu.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 11, 2017)

KPM said:


> Yes.  This is the Traditional Wing Chun Chum Kiu.


Do I get a prize now? Maybe an all expenses paid vacation to someplace exotic, like Jersey? Lol!

I really like the utilitarian concept. I have a small set of San Sik called Lin Wan Kou Da that follows the same concept. Empty hand, pole & knives, no variation in movement & rich in concept. Throws, locks, chokes strikes & weapons. All basic movement but diverse in application & theory. It was what I taught (altered to suit CQC tactics and weapons) to various infantry & special operation units when I was a contractor for the Army.

If this was indeed something William Cheung created, it took a great deal of knowledge & insight to create to make cohesive. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 11, 2017)

CK with knives? 

Squarest peg, roundest hole.


----------



## geezer (Mar 11, 2017)

Me? I'm too distracted by the weapons in the background. Cool. Hema stuff ...and the _Kabong._ Don't see too many of them used these days.

Y'all know about the _Kabong_, right? Here is a picture  showing the usage of "El Kabong":

https://squathole.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/make_way_for_el_kabong_by_gagaman.jpg


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 11, 2017)

geezer said:


> Me? I'm too distracted by the weapons in the background. Cool. Hema stuff ...and the _Kabong._ Don't see too many of them used these days.
> 
> Y'all know about the _Kabong_, right? Here is a picture  showing the usage of "El Kabong":
> 
> https://squathole.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/make_way_for_el_kabong_by_gagaman.jpg


One of my favorite cartoons growing up.


----------



## anerlich (Mar 12, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Squarest peg, roundest hole.



Like some people on the forum.

Other KF styles that employ butterfly swords often adapt their empty hand forms to the weapons.

I played around with adapting the sword form to short sticks and empty hands for a while. And people say there are no hammerfists in Wing Chun! Swords on the dummy as well.

I can almost hear LFJ choking on his beer from here.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 12, 2017)

anerlich said:


> Like some people on the forum.
> 
> Other KF styles that employ butterfly swords often adapt their empty hand forms to the weapons.
> 
> ...


Yup, a very popular form of practice in the various Hung  Kuen styles, adapting empty hand to weapon. After all, the weapon is just an extension of the hand.


----------



## KPM (Mar 12, 2017)

LFJ said:


> CK with knives?
> 
> Squarest peg, roundest hole.



Yeah.  Kind of ironic, isn't it?  You claim that your version of YMVT was derived entirely from the weapons.  Yet you can't do your Chum Kiu form with the knives.  Go figure!!!!


----------



## LFJ (Mar 12, 2017)

KPM said:


> Yeah.  Kind of ironic, isn't it?  You claim that your version of YMVT was derived entirely from the weapons.  Yet you can't do your Chum Kiu form with the knives.  Go figure!!!!



It's not a dance routine.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 12, 2017)

anerlich said:


> Like some people on the forum.



Like Aikido people on the Wing Chun forum.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 12, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Like Aikido people on the Wing Chun forum.


Ah, because there's nothing similar between different arts! I get it...you don't use the same physics or species of human we do. Good point.


----------



## KPM (Mar 12, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Like Aikido people on the Wing Chun forum.



He has been making more sense than you have lately!  He is a welcome addition to the Wing Chun forum!!!


----------



## Danny T (Mar 12, 2017)

LFJ said:


> CK with knives?
> 
> Squarest peg, roundest hole.


Obviously not something you do...
My understanding of the system is it all relates. One doesn't have to do chum kiu with knives to learn knife however, I don't believe doing so is detrimental. It simply gives the one doing it a different pattern to work the knives and manipulating body unity with. Is it such a terrible thing to do extra curricular training with the knives? I think not and see no concern. But then I do so as well with knives on the mook jong; also do empty hands vs knives, knives vs pole, knives vs knives.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 12, 2017)

Danny T said:


> It simply gives the one doing it a different pattern to work the knives and manipulating body unity with. Is it such a terrible thing to do extra curricular training with the knives?



The problem though, is that the pattern is not one meant to be done with knives.

Most of the actions and underlying concepts are incompatible. Unless you don't know the concepts or disregard them, then you can treat it like just a dance routine and it doesn't matter that you're waving knives around.

You will have to change a lot about the form for it to make sense with knives, but why do that when there is already a perfectly good form specifically for the knives?

Extracurricular training is of course to be done, but you don't need another set pattern apart from the BJD form. Set patterns are the least important part of knife training, especially if the pattern is incompatible with the weapon.

If you want to do solo air training with the knives apart from the BJD form, it is more sensible and beneficial to do random "shadow slashing", working actual BJD footwork and actions in free combination with random directional changes, etc..

Doing CK with the knives is completely unnecessary and like I said, the squarest peg in the roundest hole. Useless at best, dangerous at worst.


----------



## KPM (Mar 13, 2017)

^^^^^^  True for WSLVT maybe.  Not true for TWC.  Not true for Pin Sun Wing Chun.  If the empty hands were derived from the knives....as you say....why wouldn't you be able to do the empty hand techniques with the knives in hand?  If you can't, then likely your empty hands are not as "based upon the weapons" as you claim.  If your concepts for the knives vary so much from that of the empty hands, then how can your empty hands be so directly derived from the knives????

 Obviously the TWC Chum Kiu form is a bit different from the WSLVT Chum Kiu form.  The TWC form DOES have footwork that is compatible with the knives.  There are plenty of overlaps in the "Chum Kiu with knives" form and the TWC knife form itself.   And after practicing the empty hand form with the knives and seeing how the moves adapt, when you go back to the empty hand form itself you have a new appreciation for the techniques and how they can  be used.  It gives you a different perspective that improves your actual empty hand form.  Same with doing the empty hand form on the dummy.   Can you do your WSLVT Chum Kiu form on the dummy?  With all of your emphasis on "the forms teach concepts and not applications", one would think any of the forms could be done on the dummy as well as with the knives since they are all so "conceptual" and not technique/application based.  But surprisingly, that doesn't seem to be the case!!! 

Why train this way?  Because the more things overlap and adapt the better you learn them and  appreciate what they can do. Doing a form in various ways really ingrains that form and what it teaches in your muscle memory.  If your system has some square pegs and some round pegs, and one piece isn't interchangeable with another, then maybe your system isn't as coherent as you think!


----------



## LFJ (Mar 13, 2017)

KPM said:


> If the empty hands were derived from the knives....as you say....why wouldn't you be able to do the empty hand techniques with the knives in hand?



I don't say that.

What is carried over to empty hands from knives are general tactical guidelines, but these manifest very differently given the very different nature of barehand and knife fighting.



> Can you do your WSLVT Chum Kiu form on the dummy?  With all of your emphasis on "the forms teach concepts and not applications", one would think any of the forms could be done on the dummy as well as with the knives since they are all so "conceptual" and not technique/application based.  But surprisingly, that doesn't seem to be the case!!!



If you emphasize concept over technique, why obsess with patterns and try to do them on or with things they weren't intended to be done on or with?

It takes quite a bit of forcing to redo things to fit where they don't belong. Measuring and shaving square pegs to fit in round holes, when you have round pegs. Innovative? No. Pointless waste of time.

Again, much more sensible and beneficial to do a little random action if you are looking for extracurricular training with either the dummy or knives.



> If your system has some square pegs and some round pegs, and one piece isn't interchangeable with another, then maybe your system isn't as coherent as you think!



There are also square holes and round holes. The system is perfectly coherent if you know where everything goes. 

It's not a fault of the system if you don't know what you're doing and misuse it.


----------



## wingerjim (Mar 13, 2017)

KPM said:


> Does anyone recognize this dummy form?


Certainly not Ip Man form but still uses WC principals. It looks like some very short version or drills on the dummy, but does not follow the Ip Man WC dummy form.


----------



## wingerjim (Mar 13, 2017)

KPM said:


> Maybe this one is easier to spot?


A version of Chum Kiu.


----------



## Danny T (Mar 13, 2017)

LFJ said:


> The problem though, is that the pattern is not one meant to be done with knives.
> 
> Most of the actions and underlying concepts are incompatible. Unless you don't know the concepts or disregard them, then you can treat it like just a dance routine and it doesn't matter that you're waving knives around.
> 
> ...


So really it isn't the pattern but how the knives are manipulated within the pattern. Doing CK with knives is unnecessary...that I can agree with that. But doing CK pattern with knives isn't necessarily wrong... provided it is performed with proper blade presentation. Maybe the way you perform your presentation of body and knives are different from with I was taught...but I doubt it. Maybe it is just a difference of understanding and perspective.


----------



## KPM (Mar 13, 2017)

*If you emphasize concept over technique, why obsess with patterns and try to do them on or with things they weren't intended to be done on or with?*

---Who is "obsessing"?   A concept should be able to be used in multiple ways.  So having forms that are conceptual means they should be able to be performed in multiple ways.  "Intended" is irrelevant in that context.  It either works or it doesn't.  If it doesn't work for WSLVT that's Ok.   But that doesn't mean you can then say negative things about others for which it does work!


*It takes quite a bit of forcing to redo things to fit where they don't belong. Measuring and shaving square pegs to fit in round holes, when you have round pegs. Innovative? No. Pointless waste of time.*

---I assure you that I "forced" nothing!  It is very natural!  Again, what you say may apply to WSLVT. But why do you assume that it applies to other versions of Wing Chun?  That is very narrow-minded on your part!


*Again, much more sensible and beneficial to do a little random action if you are looking for extracurricular training with either the dummy or knives.*

---We do that too!   I can't help it if WSLVT is missing out on one aspect of good training because it doesn't work for that system!  ;-) 



*There are also square holes and round holes. The system is perfectly coherent if you know where everything goes.*

----Well, it seems that some systems must be more coherent than others!  ;-) 


*It's not a fault of the system if you don't know what you're doing and misuse it.*

---True!  And you obviously don't know what I'm doing!!!   Nothing being "misused" here!!!  Maybe you should limit your opinions to WSLVT and not comment about other people's Wing Chun!!!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2017)

LFJ said:


> It takes quite a bit of forcing to redo things to fit where they don't belong.


If you have to force your technique to adapt to a new situation, you are forcing your technique. Technique carries concepts, and should be adaptable to different applications (including looking at weapons) by using the concepts to adjust the technique. The result may or may not be useful (application), but the exploration will nearly always be useful.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 13, 2017)

From my own perspective:

The movements and patterns in forms, in and of themselves, carry no meaning, save that which we apply to them.

Concept is not bound by form, and as such, can be carried out in a multitude of ways.

Unless a form is specifically designed to illustrate and function in a certain set of parameters, it is narrow minded to believe that no overlap can occur, especially since the likelihood of overlap of function (ie; hand to weapon, weapon to hand) is bound to occur. We are limited in function and only have so many ways to grab, push, squeeze, carry, thrust, strike or embrace.

Kum Na theory states that there are a number of ways in which a technique can be applied, displacing the bone, grasping/tearing the muscle, sealing the breath or vein and cavity press. Add this to Tek, Da, Sow and Na and many interpretations of a pattern develop.

If weapons are an extension of the hand, overlap in principle, theory, mechanics and application will occur. There may be more economical ways to perform, but without exploration and investigation, how is one to know?

More often than not, the more I investigate and question I find the movements and patterns of forms to be generic. The applications applied to them being based solely on the understanding of the person performing or teaching them. Their understanding could be, and often times is, limited in scope. Often this is due to lack of knowledge, unwillingness to accept alternative theories, dogma etc.

Sometimes its best not to turn your nose up at something if the golden rule can be applied, "Does it work?".

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Bxxh8hrELNw/VTNjmoPTLJI/AAAAAAAAcR8/RdFSM2kBpKQ/s640/CastNet.gif

Fisherman Casts a Net:

A traditional throwing pattern in many styles of TCMA that was named because of its similarity to how fishermen cast a net. One of many such utilitarian patterns that can be found in TCMA.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> From my own perspective:
> 
> The movements and patterns in forms, in and of themselves, carry no meaning, save that which we apply to them.
> 
> ...


I like this approach. I even think movement can be used for exploration without knowing what the intention of the movement is (or its underlying fundaments). One of the thing that got me visiting the WC forum was watching WC videos. I'd find a movement that looked very foreign to me, then play with the movement. I wasn't trying to figure out the right way to do it (from a WC perspective), I was looking for where that movement either already occurs in my NGA practice, or where it might be useful.

So, even if the fundamentals were/are entirely different between empty hand and weapons, there's still good exploration to be had by divorcing the movement from the fundamentals and seeing where those same ingrained movements could be used in a different context. Of course, if there's significant overlap in the fundamentals, then it becomes even more useful.


----------



## Danny T (Mar 13, 2017)

It's about what is available within the movement.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I even think movement can be used for exploration without knowing what the intention of the movement is (or its underlying fundaments).


There are many martial dance rituals from around the world, still practiced today, that are no longer associated with fighting application, outside the convention of the ritual itself. They are still practiced per tradition and are often part of some Mystery Play for religious ceremony. However, some people are now looking into those practices to see if there is any correlation with native combat traditions. In some cases overlaps have been found, shedding light onto the development and evolution of the areas aboriginal fighting methods and religious ceremonies. Its all one big circle.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 13, 2017)

Danny T said:


> It's about what is available within the movement.


Very true, and some people may be surprised to find that what is available in that movement lends itself best to sewing some trousers, casting a fishing net or hammering a nail, because that was what gave inspiration to the movement to begin with. Everything is relative to the perspective from which it is viewed, nothing is written in stone.

IMO. eventually everyone has to walk the path of martial arts by themselves, at some point your instructor can no longer hold your hand and you will have to venture forth alone. What knowledge you gain before this happens, and at what point they let go of your hand, will determine how easily the path ahead is traversed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> Very true, and some people may be surprised to find that what is available in that movement lends itself best to sewing some trousers, casting a fishing net or hammering a nail, because that was what gave inspiration to the movement to begin with. Everything is relative to the perspective from which it is viewed, nothing is written in stone.
> 
> IMO. eventually everyone has to walk the path of martial arts by themselves, at some point your instructor can no longer hold your hand and you will have to venture forth alone. What knowledge you gain before this happens, and at what point they let go of your hand, will determine how easily the path ahead is traversed.


I think a lot of times, it may not even be necessarily what inspired the movement, but was the best/easiest way to communicate it others. Once you use that comparison, the movement will graduate more toward the example used, if that graduation is at least as functional. There is a movement I describe as "looking at your watch, without bending your neck, and you need reading glasses" to get people to turn over their wrist, keep their head up, and keep the arm extended. Theirs looks a bit more like the description than mine, and seems to work just as well.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think a lot of times, it may not even be necessarily what inspired the movement, but was the best/easiest way to communicate it others. Once you use that comparison, the movement will graduate more toward the example used, if that graduation is at least as functional. There is a movement I describe as "looking at your watch, without bending your neck, and you need reading glasses" to get people to turn over their wrist, keep their head up, and keep the arm extended. Theirs looks a bit more like the description than mine, and seems to work just as well.


Good post! It's certainly true that the opposite can work to gain the desired effect, sign language is an example. Context and naming convention sometimes have no relationship in the beginning, it's only through time and use that it becomes part of the culture/tradition. Often associating something with a culturally understood daily living example is the only way to convey what you are trying to communicate. In reality, the two may have nothing in common, simply a vehicle necessary for effective communication. This is essentially how Key Words in TCMA were created, a mnemonic used in association with physical movement. This can be seen throughout the world from dance to martial arts.


----------



## Danny T (Mar 13, 2017)

In all honesty I don't put stock in what inspires movement. It's more, the potential applications available within the movement. Of course any potential will be based upon the spacial relationship of the participants at the time, what the other person is doing, and what is the contact point/s when contact is even established.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 13, 2017)

Danny T said:


> In all honesty I don't put stock in what inspires movement. It's more, the potential applications available within the movement. Of course any potential will be based upon the spacial relationship of the participants at the time, what the other person is doing, and what is the contact point/s when contact is even established.


Agree, and from my perspective and understanding, while I also believe in the potential of application based on situation in relation to the movement expressed, those things are still based on mnemonic association. To me understanding that association can lead to a deeper understanding of the structure, force generation, mechanics, principles etc. inherent in the movement. For me this allows for less of a need to learn numerous techniques and applications, focusing instead on fully learning what a movement can be used for and what is most effective for maximizing my inherent ability. Thanks for the input Danny T, different perspectives give pause for contemplation and a chance to re-examine my own understanding.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2017)

Danny T said:


> In all honesty I don't put stock in what inspires movement. It's more, the potential applications available within the movement. Of course any potential will be based upon the spacial relationship of the participants at the time, what the other person is doing, and what is the contact point/s when contact is even established.


When someone speaks of what inspired a movement, I tend to read it as referring to why they originally did the movement instinctively, rather than a cerebral inspiration. In other words, not "that's an interesting motion - I'll bet it would work as a throw", but an "oh ****, do something!" (and out comes a habitual motion). So, a fisherman who was trying to throw down an attacker (or opponent in competition) might instinctively reach for that net-casting motion, because his muscles know how to do it. Then, that motion works, so he teaches it to someone else.

Of course, some probably were cerebral inspirations, but I consider them less likely, so less common.


----------



## Juany118 (Mar 13, 2017)

KPM said:


> Yes.  This is the Traditional Wing Chun Chum Kiu.


Was just going to say is that CK from the stuff you said you got from Sifu Keith


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> When someone speaks of what inspired a movement, I tend to read it as referring to why they originally did the movement instinctively, rather than a cerebral inspiration. In other words, not "that's an interesting motion - I'll bet it would work as a throw", but an "oh ****, do something!" (and out comes a habitual motion). So, a fisherman who was trying to throw down an attacker (or opponent in competition) might instinctively reach for that net-casting motion, because his muscles know how to do it. Then, that motion works, so he teaches it to someone else.
> 
> Of course, some probably were cerebral inspirations, but I consider them less likely, so less common.


Certainly true, people will instinctively use movements that they perform on a daily basis, because they are ingrained. This is often how utilitarian movements, as in the original topic of this discussion, come about. Over time this association may be forgotten, added to, or completely altered, but the premise is none-the-less plausible.


----------



## Juany118 (Mar 13, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> Do I get a prize now? Maybe an all expenses paid vacation to someplace exotic, like Jersey? Lol!
> 
> I really like the utilitarian concept. I have a small set of San Sik called Lin Wan Kou Da that follows the same concept. Empty hand, pole & knives, no variation in movement & rich in concept. Throws, locks, chokes strikes & weapons. All basic movement but diverse in application & theory. It was what I taught (altered to suit CQC tactics and weapons) to various infantry & special operation units when I was a contractor for the Army.
> 
> If this was indeed something William Cheung created, it took a great deal of knowledge & insight to create to make cohesive. Thanks for sharing.




It's how things "mesh" in TWC that I really like.  I think that might even be why Sigung Cheung made "advanced" SLT.  There is actually, imo, a more obvious progression/connection between each of the forms than other lineages that claim a connection to YM.  Now by obvious I mean just that, obvious, because of course there is a connection in the other Lineages and additions like "advanced" SLT fill in what someone with a more analytical mindset may see as a "gap."

That said, the "Wooden Dummy" form, as an example, is its own form in TWC, however one of the things I am taught at least is that I should not tie myself to that form.  The Mook Jong is there to "stand in" if I do not have a partner, to free form, as well.  As such I should be able to connect anything to it.  So whether by intent or chance it makes sense to me that the CK form should also work on the dummy.  I would like to imagine Sigung Cheung as he adapted YM CK to his CK saying "hey can I make this work on the Mook?" I hope to have the chance to ask him that one day actually.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> It's how things "mesh" in TWC that I really like.  I think that might even be why Sigung Cheung made "advanced" SLT.  There is actually, imo, a more obvious progression/connection between each of the forms than other lineages that claim a connection to YM.  Now by obvious I mean just that, obvious, because of course there is a connection in the other Lineages and additions like "advanced" SLT fill in what someone with a more analytical mindset may see as a "gap."


While I can't say this is true of YCWWC, we do have cohesion, at least IMO. Much like Taiwanese Hung Kuen, Yuen Chai Wan Wing Chun diverged to incorporate and express the 5 Animals individually. I never learned this method, but have seen it, a Vietnamese student of mine learned this variant prior to studying with me. It has it's own cohesion and works well for how it was designed. For me it's too complex, too difficult to change back and forth from one type of method and energy to another. YCWWC is very similar to Yuen Kay San Wing Chun, if anything, even simpler, but contains elements throughout not commonly found in YMWC, and used to different purposes. Not better, just different and overlap with form and concept (for both weapon & hand) is prevalent, just not to the degree of William Cheung's version.


----------



## KPM (Mar 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Was just going to say is that CK from the stuff you said you got from Sifu Keith




Yes and no.   I trained with Sifu John Clayton in a series of private lessons many years ago.  Looking at Sifu Mazza's stuff, or GM Cheung's vids, etc. just helps point out refinements in the movement and uses.  Since I didn't learn in the typical classroom setting from Sifu Clayton, Sifu Mazza's material has been useful for filling in some of the curriculum gaps I might have missed.....like training drills, footwork drills, etc.   Since I was already a seasoned Wing Chun guy and not a beginner, Sifu Clayton took me through the forms, the footwork, and essential fighting strategies.


----------



## Eric_H (Mar 13, 2017)

FWIW, Hung Fa Yi already has weapons dummy forms - Don't need to invent any new ones. That said, I think you should constantly be deconstructing and evaluating all forms from both a weapons and empty hand perspective. It's valuable, to me at least, to know what things translate and what things don't.


----------



## Dylan9d (Mar 13, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Like Aikido people on the Wing Chun forum.



LFJ full of his WSL crap again......

Everytime he writes a message about WC on a forum both WSL and YM will roll over in their graves may they RIP.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 13, 2017)

Danny T said:


> But doing CK pattern with knives isn't necessarily wrong... provided it is performed with proper blade presentation.



You have to change a lot for it to make sense with the knives.

For example, there is multiple x-ing of the arms in various ways in CK, and doing that with knives will cut your own hands off. So, you change that and it changes the concept entirely. You're then left with just the rough pattern, which is the least important thing about the form.

Pointless.

Plus, you still have mismatching footwork which is the correct direction for empty hand but wrong direction for knives. If that's not fixed, then it just shows a complete misunderstanding of the empty hand and knife fighting methods.

If we're talking about TWC's CK, then it's even more of a mess since Cheung says some stepping in the form is forward, but the secret application is backward. So, for the sake of keeping secrets, you train the wrong footwork thousands of times for what you actually want to do.

Then you want to apply the same backward thinking directly to the knives?

That's the problem with modifying forms you never learned properly in the first place.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 13, 2017)

KPM said:


> ---I assure you that I "forced" nothing!  It is very natural!



Actions had to be altered to be arranged around the dummy, stubbornly attached to a pattern.

If you want to perform the actions of CK on the dummy, the dummy form already does that anyway. 

Doing the whole CK form on the dummy is just pointless attachment to pattern.


----------



## geezer (Mar 13, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Actions had to be altered to be arranged around the dummy, stubbornly attached to a pattern.
> 
> If you want to perform the actions of CK on the dummy, the dummy form already does that anyway.
> 
> Doing the whole CK form on the dummy is just_ pointless attachment to pattern_.



LFJ, it is unfortunate that your previous exchanges with many forum members have lead them to dismiss you out of hand, even when you make good points (as you do here).


----------



## anerlich (Mar 14, 2017)

LFJ said:


> If we're talking about TWC's CK, then it's even more of a mess since Cheung says some stepping in the form is forward, but the secret application is backward. So, for the sake of keeping secrets, you train the wrong footwork thousands of times for what you actually want to do.



Yeah, sure. And WSL once said Leung Bik was actually a Martian. Where do you get this sh*t from?


----------



## KPM (Mar 14, 2017)

geezer said:


> LFJ, it is unfortunate that your previous exchanges with many forum members have lead them to dismiss you out of hand, even when you make good points (as you do here).



I agree with the first part, but disagree with the second part.   LFJ is just miffed because he has gone on and on about how WSLVT is so conceptually based and not about applications, etc, etc.   Yet it  turns out that his forms are not conceptual enough and therefore flexible enough to be practiced in various ways.

After a student has learned the TWC Chum Kiu form well....and before they have even thought about beginning to learn the dummy form....you can tell the student "ok, now here is how you can do the CK form on the dummy!" And a light goes off in their head when they realize that they also know a dummy form without having to learn a whole new sequence! They immediately have something valuable to practice that also reinforces their empty hand Chum Kiu so that they know it that much better! This isn't a "pointless attachment to pattern", this is an efficient use of training!!! 

So saying "Doing the whole CK form on the dummy is just_ pointless attachment to pattern"  _is not a good point at all!.

In fact, it is revealing of someone that doesn't have an understanding of how movements can have multiple uses and that movements based on concepts are readily adaptable in a wide range of environments.  It also sounds like someone with "sour  grapes" because he realizes that his system (which he thought was the greatest thing in the world) ends up not being as "coherent" as he has made it out to be here on this forum!!!


----------



## KPM (Mar 14, 2017)

anerlich said:


> Yeah, sure. And WSL once said Leung Bik was actually a Martian. Where do you get this sh*t from?




Actually, I am pretty sure that it was David Petersen in a seminar that  said some of the stepping in Chum Kiu was forward in the form for convenience, but to the rear in actual use!   But, of course, we all now know (thanks to Guy and LFJ) that David Petersen never learned the "real" WSLVT!!!!


----------



## KPM (Mar 14, 2017)

*For example, there is multiple x-ing of the arms in various ways in CK, and doing that with knives will cut your own hands off. So, you change that and it changes the concept entirely. You're then left with just the rough pattern, which is the least important thing about the form.*

----I'll say it again, since you either missed it before or you are just plain dense.  What you wrote may be true of the WSLVT Chum Kiu, but it is not true of the TWC Chum Kiu.   Do you know the TWC Chum Kiu???? 


*Pointless.*

---Again, maybe pointless for you and your  Chum Kiu.  And that is your loss!  But you continuing to criticize and speak negatively about someone else and their Chum Kiu is pretty pointless!!!!


*Plus, you still have mismatching footwork which is the correct direction for empty hand but wrong direction for knives. If that's not fixed, then it just shows a complete misunderstanding of the empty hand and knife fighting methods.*

----Do you know TWC empty hand and  knife fighting methods???   If not, how can you say such things with so much confidence?  Like I said before, it sounds like you need to limit your opinions to what you know.....WSLVT.


*
That's the problem with modifying forms you never learned properly in the first place.*

---No.  You are  displaying the exact problem of trying to comment with some kind of authority and usefulness on forms that you have never learned at all!!!! 

---I shared 3 videos of myself just to show a training method I use to members of the forum.   I shared why I do things that way and why I think it is useful.   You have been nothing but critical and judgmental.   And you don't even know TWC!!!    And when have you EVER posted a video of yourself to contribute to this forum????


----------



## KPM (Mar 14, 2017)

double post


----------



## Juany118 (Mar 14, 2017)

"


KPM said:


> I agree with the first part, but disagree with the second part.   LFJ is just miffed because he has gone on and on about how WSLVT is so conceptually based and not about applications, etc, etc.   Yet it  turns out that his forms are not conceptual enough and therefore flexible enough to be practiced in various ways.
> 
> After a student has learned the TWC Chum Kiu form well....and before they have even thought about beginning to learn the dummy form....you can tell the student "ok, now here is how you can do the CK form on the dummy!" And a light goes off in their head when they realize that they also know a dummy form without having to learn a whole new sequence! They immediately have something valuable to practice that also reinforces their empty hand Chum Kiu so that they know it that much better! This isn't a "pointless attachment to pattern", this is an efficient use of training!!!
> 
> ...


I actually wanted to say something similar to the last point.  If a system is truly coherent not only should each form smoothly flow into the next, you should be able to blend them with a little thought/practice.  Some may say it's pointless to do CK on the dummy but is it pointless to increase your understanding of the art by using CK on the dummy?  I do not think so.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 14, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> "
> 
> I actually wanted to say something similar to the last point.  If a system is truly coherent not only should each form smoothly flow into the next, you should be able to blend them with a little thought/practice.  Some may say it's pointless to do CK on the dummy but is it pointless to increase your understanding of the art by using CK on the dummy?  I do not think so.


Agreed. Without knowing the forms (not necessary for the discussion at hand), I can say that attempting to do a form in a different context is useful. If the form works easily in that context, you learn one thing. If it does not, you dig deeper to figure out why, and you've learned several other things. Either way, the exercise was useful.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 14, 2017)

anerlich said:


> Where do you get this sh*t from?



Here's one example, at :57


----------



## LFJ (Mar 14, 2017)

KPM said:


> LFJ is just miffed because he has gone on and on about how WSLVT is so conceptually based and not about applications, etc, etc.   Yet it  turns out that his forms are not conceptual enough and therefore flexible enough to be practiced in various ways.



That you can alter your form to be done around a dummy or with knives in your hands doesn't make it conceptual.



> In fact, it is revealing of someone that doesn't have an understanding of how movements can have multiple uses and that movements based on concepts are readily adaptable in a wide range of environments.



YMVT forms, being concept-based, aren't collections of movements with multiple applications.

You seem to think conceptual = having multiple applications. That's just application-based thinking multiplied.



> It also sounds like someone with "sour  grapes" because he realizes that his system (which he thought was the greatest thing in the world) ends up not being as "coherent" as he has made it out to be here on this forum!!!



Shaving square pegs to fit in round holes doesn't make your system more coherent.

It means you were either missing pieces or lost the instruction manual.



KPM said:


> *For example, there is multiple x-ing of the arms in various ways in CK, and doing that with knives will cut your own hands off. So, you change that and it changes the concept entirely. You're then left with just the rough pattern, which is the least important thing about the form.*
> 
> ----I'll say it again, since you either missed it before or you are just plain dense.  What you wrote may be true of the WSLVT Chum Kiu, but it is not true of the TWC Chum Kiu.   Do you know the TWC Chum Kiu????



We can see exactly this in the videos you provided. 

The actions are not unaltered between the empty hand and knife versions.


----------



## KPM (Mar 14, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Here's one example, at :57




Geez!  Perfect example of LFJ not understanding the "conceptual context" of a motion!  That low Bong can be done stepping forward as in the form, with a T step as Sifu Redmond shows in his video, and with a "pivot step."


----------



## KPM (Mar 14, 2017)

LFJ said:


> That you can alter your form to be done around a dummy or with knives in your hands doesn't make it conceptual.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You need to stop now LFJ.  You just continue to dig deeper the hole you have made for yourself.   You obviously are talking non-sense.  You don't know TWC.   What you say doesn't apply to TWC.   You have no room to criticize anyone else.   I distinctly recall in the past on this forum where you have blasted people for assuming to talk about something they know nothing about when you were defending something you had said about WSLVT.   This is exactly the same thing in reverse.   Hypocrite much???


----------



## LFJ (Mar 14, 2017)

KPM said:


> Geez!  Perfect example of LFJ not understanding the "conceptual context" of a motion!  That low Bong can be done stepping forward as in the form, with a T step as Sifu Redmond shows in his video, and with a "pivot step."



Conceptual ≠ techniques having multiple applications.

As I said, this is just application-based thinking multiplied.


----------



## geezer (Mar 14, 2017)

KPM said:


> ....So saying "Doing the whole CK form on the dummy is just_ pointless attachment to pattern"  _is not a good point at all!.



I'm coming from a different place in questioning our attachment to pre-arranged movement sequences. I simply think that the three empty handed sets, plus the dummy set are quite complete as they are. We really _don't need any more stinkin forms_. 







I think there would be greater value in excerpting sections from C_hum Kiu_, consider the underlying concept involved, and then work that on the dummy, or if applicable, with the knives. Or work with a "live dummy" (training partner) ...developing san sik sequences.


----------



## KPM (Mar 14, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Conceptual ≠ techniques having multiple applications.
> 
> As I said, this is just application-based thinking multiplied.



BS.  Conceptual does not equal "abstract" either!  You always make your system sound so abstract that is hard to conceive how it actually works without really applying any kind of techniques!!!   A concept is a mental construct, but is also corresponds to a physical construct, ie...way of moving.  When you understand the concept behind what the movements are trying to achieve, then you can apply those movements in many ways and still fulfill the concept behind them.  You seem to be  talking about some uber-intellectual abstraction that is far removed from actual fighting.  I guess that's why WSLVT is so hard to learn and very few people get it right!!!   And I don't see that as a good thing!  That idea doesn't speak well of a system that is supposed to be efficient and straight-forward like Wing Chun!!!

But this is different topic.  If you want to talk about what "conceptual" actually means, then start a new thread.


----------



## KPM (Mar 14, 2017)

geezer said:


> I'm coming from a different place in questioning our attachment to pre-arranged movement sequences. I simply think that the three empty handed sets, plus the dummy set are quite complete as they are. We really _don't need any more stinkin forms_.
> 
> I think there would be greater value in excerpting sections from C_hum Kiu_, consider the underlying concept involved, and then work that on the dummy, or if applicable, with the knives. Or work with a "live dummy" (training partner) ...developing san sik sequences.



But it's not creating any new forms!  It is just using the forms you have to maximize their benefit!  What is the difference between deriving something from Chum Kiu to practice on the dummy vs. just practicing the entire Chum Kiu form on the dummy? Or developing San Sik sequences from the Chum Kiu form?


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 14, 2017)

I have to be honest I think I agree with LFJ points here.

Practicing more forms like that doesn't increase your fighting skill imo. You still have to drill things many many many times for it to work with a partner. I know heaps of applications and ideas but I only did a few basic simple things in my fight. I just think we have the 3 forms which are good already and show what you need to know, plus all the san sik drills and that.  But who knows just my 2 cents.


----------



## anerlich (Mar 14, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Here's one example, at :57



Good example, except that it's not Cheung and the not_Cheung (Phil Redmond) is not talking about some deceitful secret application.

In other words, SFA to do with your original bullsh*t assertion. The legacy of WSL is in the hands of fools.

FWIW, I was taught the form stepping in the reverse direction.


----------



## KPM (Mar 14, 2017)

dudewingchun said:


> I have to be honest I think I agree with LFJ points here.
> 
> Practicing more forms like that doesn't increase your fighting skill imo. You still have to drill things many many many times for it to work with a partner. I know heaps of applications and ideas but I only did a few basic simple things in my fight. I just think we have the 3 forms which are good already and show what you need to know, plus all the san sik drills and that.  But who knows just my 2 cents.



Again, its not  about creating new forms.  Let's say you are Chum Kiu level and it will be awhile before you get to learn the dummy form.  Wouldn't you think it was pretty cool if you discovered you could also do your Chum Kiu form on the dummy without having to learn an entirely new sequence?  Kind of a "preview" of the dummy form to come?  How can that be a bad thing???   It may not increase your fighting skill, but it WILL increase your understanding of the Chum Kiu form!    But granted....the typical Ip Man lineage Chum Kiu form can't be practiced on the dummy.  So you really can't do what I'm saying.  I think that is why you and Geezer aren't seeing it as useful.  But in TWC the Chum Kiu form works quite well on the dummy!  As well as with the knives!


----------



## geezer (Mar 14, 2017)

KPM said:


> _....the typical Ip Man lineage Chum Kiu form can't be practiced on the dummy_.  So you really can't do what I'm saying.  I think that is why you and Geezer aren't seeing it as useful.  But in TWC the Chum Kiu form works quite well on the dummy!  As well as with the knives!



Keith, this clarifies things a lot. I was thinking about the Chum Kiu form as done in my branch of Ip Man WC/VT. FWIW plenty of Chum Kiu movements can be worked on the dummy, but in our lineage that isn't done. The dummy is held back a long time until you've milked as much cash as you can ...er, I mean until the student is ready. Yeah, that's it! 

But no matter. What we really need (all of us) is to get over our lineage prejudice and find ways to pressure test what we do so WC/VT/WC can evolve again as a practical fighting art, irrespective of lineage. Unfortunately, I'm not the guy to make that happen. But I'll give credit to anyone who does!


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 14, 2017)

geezer said:


> But no matter. What we really need (all of us) is to get over our lineage prejudice and find ways to pressure test what we do so WC/VT/WC can evolve again as a practical fighting art, irrespective of lineage. Unfortunately, I'm not the guy to make that happen. But I'll give credit to anyone who does!


TBH, I think this is a cop out. There are a multitude of competition formats WC could enter in to test it's effectiveness. There doesn't need to be a WC specific format and there shouldn't be. Why? Because of how each branch views how WC is used, some branches say it is only ideal for close range striking, some say it is most effective as a defense against grabs, some say it contains grappling, some say the effective techniques are illegal in competition, some believe the weapons are the real art, etc. WC is diverse and a universal field of competition will never be agreed upon. So IMO, it's best to compete in a field YOU believe your WC was designed for, Kyokushinkai, MMA, Dog Brothers, Kick Boxing, San Da, etc. and don't worry about what others think you should be doing. The real problem of WC is that it grew too quickly and quality control suffered, leading to a plethora of ideologies.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 14, 2017)

dudewingchun said:


> I have to be honest I think I agree with LFJ points here.
> 
> Practicing more forms like that doesn't increase your fighting skill imo. You still have to drill things many many many times for it to work with a partner. I know heaps of applications and ideas but I only did a few basic simple things in my fight. I just think we have the 3 forms which are good already and show what you need to know, plus all the san sik drills and that.  But who knows just my 2 cents.


There are different ways to approach any art. Folks who are more cerebral will need places to dig in, points to poke at and see what happens. To me, that's what the OP is doing with these forms. They're already there, so why not dig into them and see what happens if I....

Mind you, there are other ways to do the same kind of digging, and not everyone needs/wants the same kind of digging.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 14, 2017)

anerlich said:


> Good example, except that it's not Cheung and the not_Cheung (Phil Redmond) is not talking about some deceitful secret application.
> 
> In other words, SFA to do with your original bullsh*t assertion.



Actually, I've asked him this exact question before and his answer was that the actual application was hidden in the past to prevent enemies from knowing your techniques by observing the forms.

So, yeah, secret application. Which means for the sake of keeping things secret, you train the wrong footwork thousands of times for what you actually want to do.

I was under the impression that Redmond is a well-respected representative of the TWC lineage. Is he someone we should not listen to?



> FWIW, I was taught the form stepping in the reverse direction.



Stepping backward while doing the low _bong _section? Is that standard?


----------



## LFJ (Mar 14, 2017)

KPM said:


> BS.  Conceptual does not equal "abstract" either!  You always make your system sound so abstract that is hard to conceive how it actually works without really applying any kind of techniques!!!



It's not hard to conceive at all. It's just that the forms don't teach direct applications.



> A concept is a mental construct, but is also corresponds to a physical construct, ie...way of moving.  When you understand the concept behind what the movements are trying to achieve, then you can apply those movements in many ways and still fulfill the concept behind them.



You, like most WCers, always like to say your system is concept- rather than technique-based.

But what's the difference between this and any other technique-based MA then?

A round kick, whips in from the side.

It can be done high, mid, or low.
It can be done at a horizontal, upward, or downward angle.
It can be done from the rear leg with a pivot.
It can be done from the front leg with or without a pivot.
It can be doubled up or in combination with other kicks.
It can be done advancing or retreating.
It can be done hopping, jumping, or spinning. And so on...
So, what makes your Wing Chun more concept-based than something like kickboxing? You are saying the same thing. You have a technique in your form, and it can be applied in multiple ways.

This is still a technique, application-based understanding of your form. Seems pretty meaningless to claim a conceptual base in contrast to other MAs.



> You seem to be  talking about some uber-intellectual abstraction that is far removed from actual fighting.



It really shouldn't be that confusing for a Wing Chun practitioner.



> I guess that's why WSLVT is so hard to learn and very few people get it right!!!



It's not hard to learn. Some people just didn't learn it. Not a fault of the system.



> But this is different topic.  If you want to talk about what "conceptual" actually means, then start a new thread.



It's the same topic, because you're claiming the reason you can do your CK on a dummy or with knives is because it's "conceptual".

But your definition of conceptual appears to be that one technique can be applied in multiple situations.

There is no difference between this and any other technique-based MA.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 14, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Actually, I've asked him this exact question before and his answer was that the actual application was hidden in the past to prevent enemies from knowing your techniques by observing the forms.
> 
> So, yeah, secret application. Which means for the sake of keeping things secret, you train the wrong footwork thousands of times for what you actually want to do.
> 
> ...


Just curious, aside from the "secret" technique discussion, reverse practice stuff (I don't study TWC, so can't comment on the contradictions, of which you make a good point). But, what does it matter? They don't represent your branch and aren't making any claims to WC as a collective. I know Cheung has in the past, where Yip Man is concerned, but can't we all just move on? This need to point out differences in branches as a means to claim "legitimacy" IMO is ridiculous. All the various branches have their own ideas about what WC is and what it is best used for. Not one has brought forth definitive proof of their claims, so what does it matter what others do or claim if it has no bearing on what YOU do? Can't we all just accept that there are different styles (once related) that go by the name of Wing Chun? Divergence, evolution and degradation happen, change is the only constant. Nothing any of us can do about it, be it for better or worse in our opinion. It will happen, so don't worry about what others do, focus on what you do and it's future.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 14, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> This need to point out differences in branches as a means to claim "legitimacy" IMO is ridiculous.



That's not what's going on.

We were discussing whether or not it makes sense or is in any way beneficial to do CK with knives.

Footwork is definitely important to consider.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 14, 2017)

LFJ said:


> That's not what's going on.
> 
> We were discussing whether or not it makes sense or is in any way beneficial to do CK with knives.
> 
> Footwork is definitely important to consider.


But you don't understand their system, you're looking at it from the perspective of your system. I agree there are contradictions, you did well pointing them out. You are under no obligation to accept what anyone says as fact, you don't even have to comment. Maybe not all TWC branches adhere to the reverse stepping, secret application stuff. In that case, maybe there is cohesion in the movement & footwork. Maybe the way it is arranged knives & dummy work for THEIR strategy. I don't know & TBH don't really care all that much. For me I thought the idea of utility was an interesting concept, not at all unlike your pole to fist hypothesis.

And I would disagree, these conversations at their core are really about legitimacy, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 15, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> But you don't understand their system, you're looking at it from the perspective of your system.



TWC is a pretty straightforward, application-based system.



> Maybe the way it is arranged knives & dummy work for THEIR strategy.



Well, the way they fight empty-handed, maintaining distance, getting to the blindside, and attacking the arms is more a knife fighting strategy, after all.

Not the best approach for empty-hand fighting, though, IMO. To each their own.

They will often deny they do these things in hand-to-hand, but we've analyzed videos they've provided before where they indeed do exactly that.



> And I would disagree, these conversations at their core are really about legitimacy, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.



Don't know about others, but I don't care about "legitimacy" as long as it still makes sense and is beneficial training / works in fighting. That's what I've been talking about here.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> TWC is a pretty straightforward, application-based system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, best of luck if this is a conversation you want to have. IMO take from it what is useful or makes you examine the validity of another perspective as compared to your own. You know as well as anyone, it has the potential to drop deep into the rabbit hole.


----------



## KPM (Mar 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Don't know about others, but I don't care about "legitimacy" as long as it still makes sense and is beneficial training / works in fighting. That's what I've been talking about here.



Total BS!  You don't know TWC.  I showed a training method and explained how it makes sense and it is beneficial training for TWC.  You have been very critical and judgmental the whole time, even though YOU don't know TWC!  So don't give us all a BS line of "as long as it still makes sense and is beneficial training"!!!!   You are simply here to tear someone else down!  That has become VERY clear from your past posting habits!!

You compare and judge everyone else according to how your WSLVT works and find everyone else to come up short and to be "broken."   So whenever you are involved in a conversation it absolutely is about what YOU think is "legitmate" or not.   You can protest and say isn't true as much as you want.  But we all know you here!


----------



## KPM (Mar 15, 2017)

*The forms don't teach direct applications.*

----In WSLVT!!!!  But we aren't talking about WSLVT here, now are  we??? 

*
You, like most WCers, always like to say your system is concept- rather than technique-based.*

---Like every version of Wing Chun other than WSLVT (at least according to you) it is both concept-based and technique-based.  Specific techniques are what make the system distinctly Wing Chun.   And those techniques are guided by the concepts behind them as well as the concepts of the strategies and tactics of the system.  You seem to say that WSLVT is concept-based in its strategies, and then just ignores the concepts behind the techniques used.  But I doubt that is really true.   Some "JKD Concepts" guys would come the closest to being truly "concept-based" system in that the strategies and tactics of the system guide what they do and the techniques they use are somewhat irrelevant.  So sometimes they are using Wing Chun, sometimes FMA, sometimes kickboxing, etc.   But the WSLVT I have seen is not like that.  It is always Wing Chun!!!  Just like every other system of Wing Chun!


----------



## LFJ (Mar 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> *The forms don't teach direct applications.*
> 
> ----In WSLVT!!!!  But we aren't talking about WSLVT here, now are  we???



We were actually.

Because you said; 

"_you always make your system_ [that would be WSLVT] _sound so abstract that it's hard to conceive how it actually works..._".

To which I'm replying that it's not hard to conceive at all. It's just that the forms don't teach direct applications, while that might be what you're mistakenly looking for to understand it.



> ---Like every version of Wing Chun other than WSLVT (at least according to you) it is both concept-based and technique-based.  Specific techniques are what make the system distinctly Wing Chun.   And those techniques are guided by the concepts behind them as well as the concepts of the strategies and tactics of the system.



You aren't answering the question of how this differs from any other MA.

Sounds pretty meaningless to claim a conceptual base to set your style apart, when what you describe is no different from any other MA.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> We were actually.
> 
> Because you said;
> 
> ...


Wait. *You* are going to ask someone to definitively explain a comment they made and define something about their style? That's rich.


----------



## Dylan9d (Mar 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Wait. *You* are going to ask someone to definitively explain a comment they made and define something about their style? That's rich.



I think he should define his own background first before anyone should take him serious......


----------



## LFJ (Mar 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Wait. *You* are going to ask someone to definitively explain a comment they made and define something about their style? That's rich.



Some of the most in depth explanations of one's system on this forum have come from me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Some of the most in depth explanations of one's system on this forum have come from me.


As well as some of the most definitive evasions.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> As well as some of the most definitive evasions.



I have refused to feed parasites on certain occasions. Not the same thing as evasion.


----------



## Dylan9d (Mar 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I have refused to feed parasites on certain occasions. Not the same thing as evasion.



So you are a special kind of parasite then  

Post your background, it's not that hard to say who trained you and how long, is it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I have refused to feed parasites on certain occasions. Not the same thing as evasion.


You've also refused to define terms, all the while claiming others obviously didn't understand them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2017)

Dylan9d said:


> So you are a special kind of parasite then
> 
> Post your background, it's not that hard to say who trained you and how long, is it?


I actually don't have much of a problem with someone who doesn't want to list their instructor. It's not my way, but there are some whose instructors prefer not to be named. And in some styles/cultures, apparently it's not entirely appropriate without the instructor's consent. I'd like to know LFJ's full lineage, as much as I'd like to know anyone's, but it's more a matter of curiosity and trying to connect better with his posts.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You've also refused to define terms, all the while claiming others obviously didn't understand them.



Are you talking about _lin-siu-daai-da _(LSDD)?

The term was defined, but the person didn't understand what it meant in the context of YMVT.

So?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Are you talking about _lin-siu-daai-da _(LSDD)?
> 
> The term was defined, but the person didn't understand what it meant in the context of YMVT.
> 
> So?


That would be a reasonable example. You gave a short definition, rather than an explanation, and only ever told people that what they said wasn't it, without ever explaining. You do that kind of a lot, and it leaves people with no basis upon which to discuss many topics with you. You _appear _to simply assume your meaning is their meaning, or they are wrong. They give their explanation, and you tell them that's not right. But no counter-explanation, so no real discussion.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You gave a short definition, rather than an explanation, and only ever told people that what they said wasn't it, without ever explaining.



Because that dude was being pretty arrogant and rude, assuming he knew when he didn't, and that I was unaware of basic boxing. He was not actually interested in an explanation.


----------



## KPM (Mar 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You've also refused to define terms, all the while claiming others obviously didn't understand them.



And he most certainly has been vague and evasive in how he answers things!  That whole thread on "Yip Man's Curriculum" and the discussion on whether YMVT was derived entirely from the weapons is a PERFECT example!!!   The times he has gone into any kind of detailed explanation, while welcome, are the exception and NOT the rule!


----------



## LFJ (Mar 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> And he most certainly has been vague and evasive in how he answers things!  That whole thread on "Yip Man's Curriculum" and the discussion on whether YMVT was derived entirely from the weapons is a PERFECT example!!!



Interesting that NI didn't seem to have the slightest problem understanding what I had to say there.

You were/are just being dishonest about my position.


----------



## KPM (Mar 15, 2017)

*We were actually.  Because you said; 

"you always make your system [that would be WSLVT] sound so abstract that it's hard to conceive how it actually works...".

To which I'm replying that it's not hard to conceive at all. It's just that the forms don't teach direct applications, while that might be what you're mistakenly looking for to understand it.*

---Man, you can really twist and turn things around can't you!   Another reason why it is so hard to carry on any kind of reasonable discussion with you!  This whole thread has been about the appropriateness and usefulness of practicing a form (in this case the Chum Kiu form) in various ways (in this case on the dummy and with the knives).  And the Chum Kiu form being demonstrated and discussed was the TWC Chum Kiu form.  That was made very explicit.   Then you somehow manage to think you turned it around and made it all about WSLVT????


----------



## Dylan9d (Mar 15, 2017)

Yup LFJ is a firm believer....


----------



## KPM (Mar 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Interesting that NI didn't seem to have the slightest problem understanding what I had to say there.
> 
> You were/are just being dishonest about my position.



Another load of BS from the BS king!!!!


----------



## LFJ (Mar 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> ---Man, you can really twist and turn things around can't you!...
> 
> ...Then you somehow manage to think you turned it around and made it all about WSLVT????



Was not my doing.

I never mentioned WSLVT. We would not have discussed it if you didn't bring it up.

See:



KPM said:


> You always make your system sound so abstract that is hard to conceive how it actually works without really applying any kind of techniques!!!



By "your system" you obviously refer to WSLVT.

Don't want to discuss WSLVT? Don't bring it up.


----------



## Dylan9d (Mar 15, 2017)

Seriously, did anyone ever thought about quitting WC/VT completly just because of all this bickering.....

I thought Indonesian practitioners were bad.......


----------



## KPM (Mar 15, 2017)

So just what exactly were you comparing my posts and my videos to and basing your comments upon LFJ???


----------



## KPM (Mar 15, 2017)

Dylan9d said:


> Seriously, did anyone ever thought about quitting WC/VT completly just because of all this bickering.....
> 
> I thought Indonesian practitioners were bad.......



Its just a handful of Wing Chun people really.  And for some reason the worst ones seem to come from WSLVT lineage.  I honestly think WSL himself would be turning in his grave if he knew how some of his current followers were representing his lineage.


----------



## Dylan9d (Mar 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> Its just a handful of Wing Chun people really.  And for some reason the worst ones seem to come from WSLVT lineage.  I honestly think WSL himself would be turning in his grave if he knew how some of his current followers were representing his lineage.



Well I must admit that most WSLVT people I encountered so far think they are superior creatures, whilst I had my share of sparring with WC/VT folk. People that claimed they were really high up there and not a single one impressed me that much.

Now JKD folk are in my opinion very different, more open attitudes and willing to share and learn from others.....

Anyways, was just curious that this bickering and stuff would turn you off from WC


----------



## LFJ (Mar 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> LFJ said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting that NI didn't seem to have the slightest problem understanding what I had to say there.
> ...



See:



Nobody Important said:


> OK, that makes much more sense from my perspective. I can better see where you are coming from now.





Nobody Important said:


> FWIW, the discussion between LFJ & I was quite fruitful. We came to agree on some points & disagree on others, all devoid of vitriol, largely because politics was left out of it.



Yet, at the end of that thread you, KPM, were still "confused" on my basic position and the summary of it you gave that was in fact the exact opposite of everything I said was your _honest _understanding?

The thread was over 30 pages long. I don't believe you are that slow. You are a grudge holder and use dishonest tactics to appear to win arguments only you are interested in winning.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> So just what exactly were you comparing my posts and my videos to and basing your comments upon LFJ???



Who said I was comparing anything?

I was talking about benefit and sensibleness.


----------



## DanT (Mar 15, 2017)

I'm lucky, I learned TWC first, so I have much respect for what they do. My  Sifu learned from Chu Shon Tin , Wong Shun Leung, and from Sunny Tang who is a student of Moy Yat. I guess I'm in a unique position because my Wing Chun is influenced by all these people. I have a goal of one day studying a non yip man lineage. Honestly the differences between the lineages are minimal, some prefer a 50-50 stance, others a 60-40 and others a 70-30, some do big heun saos and some do small, some drag their feet some pick them up, it's not a big deal. What I've learned is that no body has the secret anything, you just have to get good at what you do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2017)

DanT said:


> I'm lucky, I learned TWC first, so I have much respect for what they do. My  Sifu learned from Chu Shon Tin , Wong Shun Leung, and from Sunny Tang who is a student of Moy Yat. I guess I'm in a unique position because my Wing Chun is influenced by all these people. I have a goal of one day studying a non yip man lineage. Honestly the differences between the lineages are minimal, some prefer a 50-50 stance, others a 60-40 and others a 70-30, some do big heun saos and some do small, some drag their feet some pick them up, it's not a big deal. What I've learned is that no body has the secret anything, you just have to get good at what you do.


I think that synopsis would apply to almost any art's branches. If it gets much more different than that, it's probably not the same art anymore. If someone calls it the same art and claims to have some secret sauce not found elsewhere in the art, I'm very skeptical. I've almost never found them to be correct, and some were being knowingly deceitful. Others were actually working off a limited understanding of the art, thinking they'd found something new, when they'd actually just found a way to work around a gap in their understanding of something fundamental.


----------



## KPM (Mar 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> See:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



More complete and total BS.   Nobody Important was agreeing with you at a certain stage of the discussion in generalities.  The particulars of your theory were never made clear.   I doubt very seriously that NI could give a description of your theory in any detail that you would agree with.   If he cares to try and is successful, then I will certainly apologize!

And I will point out that you declined to actually restate your theory in any detail to clarify what you think, even after coming back to that discussion with a time lapse of a month when memories would have faded.


----------



## KPM (Mar 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Who said I was comparing anything?
> 
> I was talking about benefit and sensibleness.



You are so tedious and frustrating to have any kind of discussion with!  Here is what YOU wrote before WSLVT was ever mentioned!

*The problem though, is that the pattern is not one meant to be done with knives.

Most of the actions and underlying concepts are incompatible. Unless you don't know the concepts or disregard them, then you can treat it like just a dance routine and it doesn't matter that you're waving knives around.

You will have to change a lot about the form for it to make sense with knives, but why do that when there is already a perfectly good form specifically for the knives?

Extracurricular training is of course to be done, but you don't need another set pattern apart from the BJD form. Set patterns are the least important part of knife training, especially if the pattern is incompatible with the weapon.

If you want to do solo air training with the knives apart from the BJD form, it is more sensible and beneficial to do random "shadow slashing", working actual BJD footwork and actions in free combination with random directional changes, etc..

Doing CK with the knives is completely unnecessary and like I said, the squarest peg in the roundest hole. Useless at best, dangerous at worst.*



So just WHAT were you comparing to if not your own WSLVT???   You don't know TWC!!!!   What "pattern" were you talking about as not being meant to be done with knives other than WSLVT???   What actions and underlying concepts were you talking about as being incompatible other than those of WSLVT??? Because you don't know TWC, so how would you be able to say???   Your role in this discussion has gone from bad to worse.  You'd better stop now because that hole you have been digging is deeper and deeper and you have no credibility!


----------



## LFJ (Mar 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here is what YOU wrote before WSLVT was ever mentioned!



None of that mentioned WSLVT either.



> So just WHAT were you comparing to if not your own WSLVT???



None of that was a comparison.



> What "pattern" were you talking about as not being meant to be done with knives other than WSLVT???[/quote   What actions and underlying concepts were you talking about as being incompatible other than those of WSLVT??? Because you don't know TWC, so how would you be able to say???



As I said, look at the two videos, or since it's you, just be honest about what you're doing.

The actions are not unaltered between the empty-hand and knife versions.

Indeed, a lot had to be changed for it to work with knives, which means incompatible concepts are being changed out.

The only thing that remains is a rough and meaningless pattern.

Pointless.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> And I will point out that you declined to actually restate your theory in any detail to clarify what you think, even after coming back to that discussion with a time lapse of a month when memories would have faded.



You made your dishonest summary while the discussion was still fresh. Not a month after.

I will point out that I declined to take that particular topic back up with a clearly dishonest discussion partner. 

The theory is in the thread, clearly stated numerous times, for anyone to reread.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 15, 2017)

If you all hurry, you can make it to the Mad Hatter's in time for tea.


----------



## geezer (Mar 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> *"You, like most WCers, always like to say your system is concept- rather than technique-based."--LFJ*
> 
> ...You seem to say that WSLVT is *concept-based* in its strategies, and then just ignores the concepts behind the techniques used.  But I doubt that is really true.   *Some "JKD Concepts" guys would come the closest to being truly "concept-based*" system in that the strategies and tactics of the system guide what they do and the techniques they use are somewhat irrelevant.  So sometimes they are using Wing Chun, sometimes FMA, sometimes kickboxing, etc.



This is equally true of the _Direct Torres Escrima _or "_DTE_ " I have trained. The group includes people from a wide variety of backgrounds and after covering basics puts emphasis on concept and strategy rather than technique. Core concepts include:

*1.* *"Getting an Angle*" i.e. establishing an advantageous position relative to your opponent.
*2*. *Forward Intent
3. Diamondpoint Response *i.e. maximum efficiency or pinpoint transition from movement to movement (this includes simultaneous defense and attack whenever possible).

However, as we all have different background, different physiques, and  different abilities, when confronted with a specific attack we typically use different techniques to respond. Coach Martin or Coach Jeff will critique what we do not on the basis of technique but rather on effectiveness and whether our techniques apply the concepts. _This_ is a truly _conceptual_ martial art.

...And yes, it has done a lot to improve my VT --even though my DTE coaches have far less WC/VT training than I have!


----------



## KPM (Mar 15, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> If you all hurry, you can make it to the Mad Hatter's in time for tea.




Geez!  Can you believe that guy!  I try to stay as far away from the Mad Hatter as possible! But he seems to reel me in every time!  

But honest question.....can you restate LFJ's theory on the origin of his Wing Chun in any detail as he claims???


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> Geez!  Can you believe that guy!  I try to stay as far away from the Mad Hatter as possible! But he seems to reel me in every time!
> 
> But honest question.....can you restate LFJ's theory on the origin of his Wing Chun in any detail as he claims???


Yes, I can. The real question though is, am I willing to join everyone in the rabbit hole? Let me think about it.


----------



## geezer (Mar 15, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> Yes, I can. The real question though is, am I willing to join everyone in the rabbit hole? Let me think about it.



Better to keep your distance, stay non-partisan and just call 'em like you see 'em. KPM is a great guy, but he always takes the bait, hook, line and sinker. LFJ and, especially Guy (remember him?) just loved to yank his chain.


----------



## KPM (Mar 15, 2017)

geezer said:


> Better to keep your distance, stay non-partisan and just call 'em like you see 'em. KPM is a great guy, but he always takes the bait, hook, line and sinker. LFJ and, especially Guy (remember him?) just loved to yank his chain.



Yeah, gotta admit that's true.  I need to work on my resistance skills for sure!


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> Yeah, gotta admit that's true.  I need to work on my resistance skills for sure!


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 15, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> View attachment 20427


Lol! You're such a nerd.


----------



## KPM (Mar 15, 2017)

Would a hearty "Fxck off!" work or would that get me banned?


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> Would a hearty "Fxck off!" work or would that get me banned?


Holy moly, sounds like someone could use a hug. I'd volunteer but I'm more the type to use your tears as lubricant. 

Besides, sounds like you might try to bite. Any other volunteers?


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 15, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> Lol! You're such a nerd.



Haha... guilty


----------



## LFJ (Mar 15, 2017)

geezer said:


> Better to keep your distance, stay non-partisan and just call 'em like you see 'em. KPM is a great guy, but he always takes the bait, hook, line and sinker. LFJ and, especially Guy (remember him?) just loved to yank his chain.



Really?

This thread is still short. There's still time to quickly read back over and see that I was only giving a non-partisan opinion on the training method as I see it, and gave alternatives of what I'd do instead.

Then you can see exactly where KPM brings up WSLVT himself and tries to make this into another lineage war.

I did not bait him. He's just a grudge holder and loves to turn things into arguments.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 16, 2017)

KPM said:


> Not aimed at you guys NI!  I meant as a "resistance skill" when LJF starts in on his cr@p.


I know, I just couldn't help myself.


----------



## Grandmaster Yue men quan (Mar 17, 2017)

Very nice midlevel adaptation. You should also include gnoy and noy moon choi, and complex trapping they are also midlevel skills, showing what to do with rear hand parry hand.


----------



## anerlich (Mar 21, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Stepping backward while doing the low _bong _section? Is that standard?



No, stepping to the left while doing a left bong. Phil was stepping to the right IIRC.




KPM said:


> even though YOU don't know TWC!



Apparently speaking to William Cheung a few times and watching vids is all that is required.

The same way I know Phil Bayer does lots of training for competition chi sao and very little else by watching his vids.


----------



## Juany118 (Mar 21, 2017)

anerlich said:


> Apparently speaking to William Cheung a few times and watching vids is all that is required.
> 
> The same way I know Phil Bayer does lots of training for competition chi sao and very little else by watching his vids.



And this is what kills me, the hypocrisy of it all.  We explain what we see of WSLVT via Philipp Bayer on videos, statements by Bayer and WSL himself and the like, and we are accused of being ignorant, twisting the truth, even lying because we don't study that.  However it seems perfectly okay for someone who doesn't study TWC to make claims of TWC using the same information.  This I think is called hypocrisy.


----------



## Juany118 (Mar 21, 2017)

KPM said:


> *You, like most WCers, always like to say your system is concept- rather than technique-based.*
> 
> ---Like every version of Wing Chun other than WSLVT (at least according to you) it is both concept-based and technique-based.  Specific techniques are what make the system distinctly Wing Chun.   And those techniques are guided by the concepts behind them as well as the concepts of the strategies and tactics of the system.  You seem to say that WSLVT is concept-based in its strategies, and then just ignores the concepts behind the techniques used.  But I doubt that is really true.   Some "JKD Concepts" guys would come the closest to being truly "concept-based" system in that the strategies and tactics of the system guide what they do and the techniques they use are somewhat irrelevant.  So sometimes they are using Wing Chun, sometimes FMA, sometimes kickboxing, etc.   But the WSLVT I have seen is not like that.  It is always Wing Chun!!!  Just like every other system of Wing Chun!



Maybe here we have a language barrier issue.  When someone says that an art is a "concept based system", in relation to WC, it is not saying "make it up as you go along."  It is saying that the art itself has unifying concepts (you can also call them principles), a logical consistency from front to back and back to front, some dictionaries define the word as "a plan or intention; a conception".  So does WC have a "plan" absolutely and the techniques, that we train to become skills, are simply the manner in which we execute said plan.


----------



## Juany118 (Mar 21, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> And this is what kills me, the hypocrisy of it all.  We explain what we see of WSLVT via Philipp Bayer on videos, statements by Bayer and WSL himself and the like, and we are accused of being ignorant, twisting the truth, even lying because we don't study that.  However it seems perfectly okay for someone who doesn't study TWC to make claims of TWC using the same information.  This I think is called hypocrisy.


 @Vajramusti simply curious to know why what I said it to be disagreed with?  I am not claiming any system is right or wrong, I am simply commenting on how arguments are formed. It's more a comment on the process of debating this point, not the conclusions of any particular point of view.

People have indeed used videos and records of interviews with WSL and PB to comment on WSLVT via PB.  When conclusions were disagreed with some people dismissed it claiming error without explanation etc.   Yet at times they seem to come to conclusions using similar, if not identical, methods regarding other Lineages.  Is that not, at least, logically inconsistent?


----------



## Marnetmar (Mar 21, 2017)

Hey KPM, what brand/model of dummy is that?


----------



## Vajramusti (Mar 21, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> @Vajramusti simply curious to know why what I said it to be disagreed with?  I am not claiming any system is right or wrong, I am simply commenting on how arguments are formed. It's more a comment on the process of debating this point, not the conclusions of any particular point of view.
> 
> People have indeed used videos and records of interviews with WSL and PB to comment on WSLVT via PB.  When conclusions were disagreed with some people dismissed it claiming error without explanation etc.   Yet at times they seem to come to conclusions using similar, if not identical, methods regarding other Lineages.  Is that not, at least, logically inconsistent?


----------------------------------------------------------
Opinions on TWC without doing TWC is not necessarily hypocrisy


----------



## Juany118 (Mar 21, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Opinions on TWC without doing TWC is not necessarily hypocrisy



You are correct.  What I found hypocritical was that the person in questions has previously said that if one doesnt study a particular lineage of WSLVT, regardless of videos and text reviewed, one can't have an opinion on WSLVT....Yet they used the same method they called unacceptable there,  to criticize TWC.

So it isn't an opinion of TWC I found hypocritical, it was HOW they chose to criticize it, given their own statements in defense of their lineage.


----------



## Vajramusti (Mar 21, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> You are correct.  What I found hypocritical was that the person in questions has previously said that if one doesnt study a particular lineage of WSLVT, regardless of videos and text reviewed, one can't have an opinion on WSLVT....Yet they used the same method they called unacceptable there,  to criticize TWC.
> 
> So it isn't an opinion of TWC I found hypocritical, it was HOW they chose to criticize it, given their own statements in defense of their lineage.



ok-thx


----------



## LFJ (Mar 22, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> What I found hypocritical was that the person in questions has previously said that if one doesnt study a particular lineage of WSLVT, regardless of videos and text reviewed, one can't have an opinion on WSLVT....Yet they used the same method they called unacceptable there,  to criticize TWC.



No one said that. You are entitled to your opinion. You may just be entirely off the mark.

You can say I'm wrong about TWC, too. Better then to enter a discussion as to why, rather than start a pointless lineage war.


----------



## geezer (Mar 22, 2017)

LFJ said:


> You can say I'm wrong about TWC, too. Better then to enter a discussion as to why, rather than start a pointless lineage war.



I must have missed the posts where _Juany_ tried to start a lineage war. In fact I don't believe anyone has trashed anyone else's whole lineage ....except maybe that guy that referred to all the other Ip Man branches that he new of other than his own to be _"broken". _

Forgive me if I can't remember who that was. I'm getting old and muddle-headed, you know.


----------



## Juany118 (Mar 22, 2017)

geezer said:


> I must have missed the posts where _Juany_ tried to start a lineage war. In fact I don't believe anyone has trashed anyone else's whole lineage ....except maybe that guy that referred to all the other Ip Man branches that he new of other than his own to be _"broken". _
> 
> Forgive me if I can't remember who that was. I'm getting old and muddle-headed, you know.


Yeah, I don't claim any Lineage is better or worse, at best I say the Lineage I currently study simply "works better" for me.

My only issue is one of process.  I just think it is "off" to criticize using methods one has said are not valid when they were defending a stance elsewhere.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 23, 2017)

geezer said:


> I must have missed the posts where _Juany_ tried to start a lineage war.



It was KPM this time around, but certainly whenever either of them feel in a tight spot defending their methods, they bring WSLVT up and try to make arguments to deflect from themselves.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 23, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I just think it is "off" to criticize using methods one has said are not valid when they were defending a stance elsewhere.



Different methods fit different systems.

One can usually look at videos of TWC and know what's going on because it's a pretty straightforward, application-based system.

But since WSLVT is not, you can't often just look at videos of it and know what's going on if you aren't familiar with the system.

When someone like Phil R. does a video saying 'this is how you do this movement in the TWC form, and this is how you apply it against this attack', we can take him at his word. There's nothing else to see. Unless he is lying.

When, however, you look at _chi-sau_ videos from WSLVT, without explanations, you can assume nothing. Actually you assume a lot, but you are always entirely off the mark, because WSLVT isn't the application-based system you're familiar with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 23, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Maybe here we have a language barrier issue.  When someone says that an art is a "concept based system", in relation to WC, it is not saying "make it up as you go along."  It is saying that the art itself has unifying concepts (you can also call them principles), a logical consistency from front to back and back to front, some dictionaries define the word as "a plan or intention; a conception".  So does WC have a "plan" absolutely and the techniques, that we train to become skills, are simply the manner in which we execute said plan.


I've assumed this phrase ("concept-based") was meant to distinguish it from arts that focus on specific techniques. I'd place NGA, for instance, with early practitioners in most cases, as a technique-based art. As students progress, if the instructor leads them to it, they move away from specific techniques as solutions, and focus on the principles. If they stay technique-based, they have about 50 options. If practitioners focus on principles, they have fewer options (basic principles, so easier to "pick" one as needed), and more solutions (because they aren't constrained by the techniques). Is that what you're talking about?


----------



## Juany118 (Mar 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I've assumed this phrase ("concept-based") was meant to distinguish it from arts that focus on specific techniques. I'd place NGA, for instance, with early practitioners in most cases, as a technique-based art. As students progress, if the instructor leads them to it, they move away from specific techniques as solutions, and focus on the principles. If they stay technique-based, they have about 50 options. If practitioners focus on principles, they have fewer options (basic principles, so easier to "pick" one as needed), and more solutions (because they aren't constrained by the techniques). Is that what you're talking about?


Largely yes.  You learn techniques, and there are more than a few BUT it is the underlying principles, the "concepts" that should guide execution.  Example, you should be be thinking "I deal with a round punch with a tan I deliver as I make a relief step" you just deal with the round punch.


----------



## Dylan9d (Mar 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I've assumed this phrase ("concept-based") was meant to distinguish it from arts that focus on specific techniques. I'd place NGA, for instance, with early practitioners in most cases, as a technique-based art. As students progress, if the instructor leads them to it, they move away from specific techniques as solutions, and focus on the principles. If they stay technique-based, they have about 50 options. If practitioners focus on principles, they have fewer options (basic principles, so easier to "pick" one as needed), and more solutions (because they aren't constrained by the techniques). Is that what you're talking about?



@gpseymour every art is technique based in early stages, Wing Chun can say it isn't, but those 3 forms aren't filled with air, although.......

And even technique based systems teach similar principles as the so called "concept / principle" arts.

It's a matter of wrapping, do you wrap it in a golden or black paper.......


----------



## Juany118 (Mar 23, 2017)

Dylan9d said:


> @gpseymour every art is technique based in early stages, Wing Chun can say it isn't, but those 3 forms aren't filled with air, although.......
> 
> And even technique based systems teach similar principles as the so called "concept / principle" arts.
> 
> It's a matter of wrapping, do you wrap it in a golden or black paper.......


I have studied some arts though that, at least as they are taught, it is all about the mats/techniques.  The specific instruction of general principles/concept as an actual tool/method of execution simply wasn't there.


----------



## Dylan9d (Mar 23, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I have studied some arts though that, at least as they are taught, it is all about the mats/techniques.  The specific instruction of general principles/concept as an actual tool/method of execution simply wasn't there.



I got both from my teacher, techniques and the principles behind it. But it starts out with a technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 23, 2017)

Dylan9d said:


> @gpseymour every art is technique based in early stages, Wing Chun can say it isn't, but those 3 forms aren't filled with air, although.......
> 
> And even technique based systems teach similar principles as the so called "concept / principle" arts.
> 
> It's a matter of wrapping, do you wrap it in a golden or black paper.......


I tend to see it that way, but


Juany118 said:


> I have studied some arts though that, at least as they are taught, it is all about the mats/techniques.  The specific instruction of general principles/concept as an actual tool/method of execution simply wasn't there.


I have seen schools where the instruction was technique-based to that extent. They didn't really teach the principles, but expected them to be learned through the techniques. IME, that usually leads to people who make fundamental mistakes until quite late in their training, when they finally realize how the techniques actually work. At that point, they stop mimicking exact movement, and start executing the principles.


----------



## geezer (Mar 23, 2017)

Dylan9d said:


> @gpseymour every art is technique based in early stages, Wing Chun can say it isn't, but those 3 forms aren't filled with air, although.......
> 
> And even technique based systems teach similar principles as the so called "concept / principle" arts.
> 
> It's a matter of wrapping, do you wrap it in a golden or black paper.......



You are clearly one of _those_ who sees similarities in the "big picture" where others might focus on differences. You may believe that ultimately, all MA consist of techniques and underlying principles, and that deep understanding one leads to the other. What a ridiculous idea! Next you will be claiming that the Earth is essentially spherical and orbits around the sun!


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 23, 2017)

geezer said:


> You are clearly one of _those_ who sees similarities in the "big picture" where others might focus on differences. You may believe that ultimately, all MA consist of techniques and underlying principles, and that deep understanding one leads to the other. What a ridiculous idea! Next you will be claiming that the Earth is essentially spherical and orbits around the sun!


Heretics! Ya'll need to find Wing Chun Jesus.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 23, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> Heretics! Ya'll need to find Wing Chun Jesus.


Sounds like a Family Guy character.


----------

