# Different Approaches to the Lap-Sau Drill



## geezer (Jun 21, 2017)

Most VT/WC/WT branches do some variation of _lap-sau_ drill. The way these drills are trained varies a lot. Different methods train different attributes.I'm curious as to how people see these drills and what attributes they train.

Here is a very old clip of _Wong Shun Leung _demonstrating a very basic lap-sau cycle:





Next, here's _Tsui Sheung Tin_ demonstrating with similarly shaped movements, but a very different use of energy:





A very different kind of _lap-sau _(sometimes even re-named "jut-chuen-da" cycle) is trained in the WT system and its derivatives as shown here:





And finally, here's a recent clip of Alan Orr doing what he feels to be a functional version of lap-sau training:





Each of these versions clearly leads in a different direction. Some would refer to them as either "right or wrong". I prefer to look at them instead  in terms of the attributes they train, and assess them in terms of functionality, keeping in mind that what is functional may depend upon the individual.

So do you train a version of lap-sau? How do you do it, what attributes does it train, and how does it fit into your overall VT/WC/WT?


----------



## geezer (Jun 21, 2017)

Nobody has an opinion? Well, here's a comment. The first way I saw this taught was similar to what you see at the beginning of the second (TST) clip. Then I changed lineages and learned the WT method like what is shown in the third clip by Alan Richter. This is the core system I have trained, and I've been exposed to various similar interpretations including that of my old sifu, LT, a so a more aggressive version of the same by Emin Boztepe, and the method used by my current instructor and kung-fu brother.

I've never trained with any WSL people, except I once met a junior level Gary Lam student and if I remember properly, his lap-sau sequence used what appeared to me to be same WSL movement pattern shown in the first clip. Compared to the other versions I had experienced, the bong and punch seemed more ballistic, with more forward pressure.

The one person whose method I've had zero contact with is Alan Orr's. So why is it that I get the impression that _what he shows seems more like what my body wants to do when the pressure is on_ i.e. what feels natural and functional?

Maybe because I'm also short and started out with wrestling as a kid, so I like being in close, keeping the pressure on... or am I just going through a _delusional phase_ again. None of the rest of you have that response. Not even KPM???


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 21, 2017)

Well, you know I always have an opinion, Geezer, but it would be horribly uninformed on this topic.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 21, 2017)

Geezer, I have trained all the variations shown in some manner. 
I tell my students to not get caught up in all the differences as to being right or wrong but that the drill can be used to expound different actions. 
Right...Wrong...nah just different.
The punch can be presented as a straight punch, a back fist, a hammer fist, or a sot sao.
There are several different switches we use as well.


----------



## KPM (Jun 22, 2017)

I initially learned the Lop Da drill very much like the WSL version in the first video.   I've never done it the LT way, and honestly it looks to me like it is too much "Wing Chun-centric."  In other words it looks like it would not likely work against a non-Wing Chun guy that is NOT throwing a nice straight punch.  I've played with the Alan Orr version a bit, but probably not enough.  This version is specifically used against an opponent NOT throwing a nice straight Wing Chun punch.  I think his video course explained it and covered it better than this clip.

Two other versions I have learned:

The Pin Sun Wing Chun version uses a "Gwai Choi" rather than a straight punch.  You do not lose contact with the partner's forearm at all during the drill.  You don't really "grab" at all with the Lop.  You pivot against his arm, smack his fist down with your Lop, and do a descending back-knuckle strike aimed at the bridge of the nose.  It is a "1 count" for each person, not a "2 count" or"Lop & Punch."   The idea in application is when you roll from the Bong your elbow rides up and pins the other guy's arm just above his elbow as your arm swings through with a descending back-knuckle strike to the bridge of his nose.  If you are sinking your weight at the same time this can be a very powerful and devastating strike.

TWC also does the stationary version much like the WSL example.  But TWC also has a version that uses a step.  From Bong the person does a forward step as he Lops and punches and the other person steps back as he does the Bong.  Then he steps forward with the Lop and Punch and the original partner steps back with the Bong.

I think these different versions represent different ranges.  The PSWC version assumes you are already in close (like the Alan Orr version) and is practiced at a distance where you can actually hit the partner.  The TWC version assumes you are further out and have to close in for your punch to land.  Of course, it also assumes that in application the other guy doesn't have a chance to step back!   The WSL version is kind of in the middle.  You aren't really close enough to land the punch without a step, yet you aren't including the step in the drill.  And before LFJ blows a gasket....yes we all understand that WSLVT does not teach "applications" and what is being trained here is skills and attributes.  I haven't done the LT version, so I would have to actually pay closer attention to Richter's video to really comment.

Overall, this shows the versatility of the "Bong to Lop and Punch" technique.  I've also been playing with this recently from a "Wing Chun Boxing" perspective, and it can also work quite well with more "angular" punches rather than the typical nice straight Wing Chun punches.

I show the PSWC version here at the 17 minute mark, some background starting at about 16 minutes:






Here is Phil talking about the TWC version:


----------



## LFJ (Jun 22, 2017)

KPM said:


> TWC also does the stationary version much like the WSL example.  But TWC also has a version that uses a step...
> 
> ...The WSL version is kind of in the middle.  You aren't really close enough to land the punch without a step, yet you aren't including the step in the drill.



The "stationary version" is not a "version". It's just the basic platform for this type of drilling.

We can hit without a step.
We can step in any direction, moving all over the room.
We can do all kinds of things from this basic format.



> And before LFJ blows a gasket....yes we all understand that WSLVT does not teach "applications" and what is being trained here is skills and attributes.



Right, I think it's worth more than a single application idea you may or may not ever use.

In your 1st video, you get deflecting with _bong_ and rolling over to drop a backfist on the nose.
In your 2nd video, you get throwing out _bong-wu_ as a shield to block straight or round punches ("wing block").

You may well use these things, but I think there's a lot more to be gained when you aren't thinking of a particular application idea.


----------



## KPM (Jun 22, 2017)

^^^^ Like I said, its versatile.  I agree that someone shouldn't be thinking of a "particular application idea" when using it.  You just flow with what presents at the time depending upon the distance and circumstance.   But if you haven't trained it under various distances and with various steps, etc.....it would be easy to think of it as only working one way....and that would be locking it into a "particular application idea."


----------



## T_Ray (Jun 22, 2017)

Lap sau drill is a training environment. A development platform, in the same way chi sau is a training environment and development platform.
It seems many lineages only received the basic bong/lap cycle and not much else? When they say we do the lap sau drill, its like someone who only ever learned to do poon sau saying they do chi sau training. The bong/lap cycle is just the beginning of lap sau training.
There are many drills that are trained from lap sau. In WSLVT there are 20 basic movements (including footwork) which can be trained on both sides (with appropriate responses) by both partners with varying degrees of co-operation and improvisation, which develop specific VT attributes.
It is trained alongside chi sau, and the two environments can work together and cross over to develop VT fighting skills.
Those who only see Lap sau drilling as the basic bong lap cycle will not appreciate its significance in VT training, and wonder why WSL VT students train it, and value it so much.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 22, 2017)

T_Ray said:


> It seems many lineages only received the basic bong/lap cycle and not much else? When they say we do the lap sau drill, its like someone who only ever learned to do poon sau saying they do chi sau training.



Next thread on "_the chi-sau drill _".


----------



## geezer (Jun 22, 2017)

T_Ray said:


> Lap sau drill is a training environment. A development platform, in the same way chi sau is a training environment and development platform...



This is certainly true in the WT/VT version I trained. It is precisely a "development platform" much like the rolling arms in poon sau. Like chi-sau, it trains attributes attributes and should not be thought of as something that is directly equivalent to fighting. Also like chi-sau, it has inumerable variations involving a wide variety of techniques, attacks and defenses, steps and turns, and so on... but without both arms engaged or sticking.

The basic platform we use is like the one Alan Richter demonstrated in his video, but from there we have many options, including using pressure to create space (distance) and add kicks to the mix, or closing and going into elbow attack cycles... or engaging both arms and flowing into the poon-sau platform.

The two potential problems I see with this system is that first of all, you can end up spending so much of your time _drilling_ that you can become very good at lap-sau and chi-sau and still be a poor fighter for lack of sparring.

Secondly, many of these drills (in WC/WT/VT in general -- all lineages) are, as KPM noted, "WC-centric". That's one thing that appeals to me about the versions Alan Orr demonstrates. His movements deal with punches coming across, not just straight, centerline shots. They remind me more of some of the _Escrima_ drills I have worked. It will be interesting to play with them a bit.


----------



## geezer (Jun 22, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Next thread on "_the chi-sau drill _".



Actually, if you phrased that as the "chi sau _drills_" ...or "chi sau_ training platform" _(to borrow from T-Ray) I think you would have a pretty accurate description. 

Too often people confuse Chi-sau with sparring or fighting. Then you end up with something like the Obasi-Gledhill foolishness.


----------



## KPM (Jun 22, 2017)

^^^^^ Yeah, I learned all the variations and transitions from the basic Lop Da platform as well.  I don't think too much of them any more.  I do think they are far too "Wing Chun-centric".  Most rely on the other guy reacting in a very "Wing Chun way."  So they aren't very "high yield" in a real free-fight or sparring exchange.  However, the "basic cycle" does kick in and have good applications in sparring because it is simple and rather reflexive once you've learned it well. 

Far too many things like this (and all the complicated Lat Sau training)  in "classical" Wing Chun are trained and drilled against another person doing "classical" Wing Chun.  That is not a reliable standard for real fighting/sparring because the opponent is very rarely going to react and respond like your fellow Wing Chun student will!


----------



## LFJ (Jun 22, 2017)

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ Yeah, I learned all the variations and transitions as well.  Don't think too much of them now.  I do think they are far too "Wing Chun-centric".  Most rely on the other guy reacting in a very "Wing Chun way."  So they aren't very "high yield" in a real free-fight or sparring exchange.  However, the "basic cycle" does kick in and have good applications in sparring.



Everything is in stages. Don't go putting the cart before the horse now.

We can introduce other types of opponents in pre-sparring drills, and free sparring. 
But, CS and LS drills are not the place for that _for a reason_.

Drills in CS and LS are done with clean VT actions because we are using each other to test and develop particular VT attributes and skills, like working on the wooden dummy. That can't be done using responses from other styles, like how we can't develop much VT using a CLF dummy. We need to pair VT structures to develop mutually.

Calling it "VT-centric" or "low yield in a real fight" is entirely missing the point and seeing your partner as an opponent. That's a fundamental misconception and misuse of the training system.


----------



## KPM (Jun 22, 2017)

^^^^You could be right.  But then again we never see it actually being used against an actual opponent who isn't a training partner.  And I'm not talking just about the WSLVT version, but all versions of Wing Chun that get into the more complicated switches and transitions and multiple count responses and such in both CS and LS.


----------



## geezer (Jun 22, 2017)

Good Lord! Both KPM and LFJ making sense and more or less agreeing! The apocalypse can't be far away. 

As for myself, I see the need for "WC/VT-centric" drilling for precisely the reasons LFJ enumerated. I also se the need to drill with people outside WC/VT.


----------



## Cephalopod (Jun 22, 2017)

Hey Geezer, I have no doubt that Richter is a great instructor but don't you think that he should instruct his partner to keep his chin tucked back? 
That mug's got crosshairs all over it!


----------



## Cephalopod (Jun 22, 2017)

I Guess I should have an opinion on the actual thread topic.

Forgive my lack of Chinese comprehension but if lop sau is translated as 'grabbing hand' or something like it, can the last 2 vids be fairly called lop sau drills?

Richter's drill looks conceptually like our biu sau method of clearing center while Orr's demo looks like how you would go through the lop sau movement if you can't grab due to fact that you're wearing 12 oz gloves. This is similar to our elbow concepts from the beginning of biu-tze.

Okay, that concludes today's semantics lesson. Bring your report in on Friday.

FWIW, When we train the bong lap drill in our group, we often focus on driving the bong inward, a bit like Chu Shong Tin is showing at 3:37 but with bong dynamics much more similar to WSL's. We're taught that as soon as you feel the opponents palm contact your wrist in this way, the quicker you flip into bong and drive forward, the more likely you are to contact and deflect his punching arm if he wrenches down violently with his lop sau. 

On that note, is that something you folks mix in with your bong-lop drill? Occasionally wrenching down violently to test the opponents defense?


----------



## geezer (Jun 22, 2017)

_Cephlopod!_ --First I ought to clarify. I don't personally know Alex Richter -- We do have some mutual friends and I might have had an email exchange with him at some point, that's it. So I probably know you guys better. We do both originally hail from the same "WT" lineage though, and his youtube clips are the clearest and closest to what I've learned that I've found. 

As far as Richter's "lap-sau cycle" goes, you are right. there is no_ lap _or grab. That is why even thought we call the whole drill "lap sau cycle", some groups now call these particular movements _jut-chuen-da. _The sequence starts with a_ jut-sau_, then the other hand shoots forward as a _chuen-sau, _which then is converted to a punch _(da) _as it crosses the bridge. At the same time the orginal _jut _snaps back into _wu-sau_ so that you never leave your "two hands on one" --except for the briefest instant in which your punching hand crosses the bridge.

Finally, regarding the bong-sau in WT, ...normally the arm does not lift-up or turn over into bong on its own. Instead, it presses forward and is turned to bong by the opponent's incoming force according to the saying, when you push down the head (wrist in this case) you flip up the tail (elbow). 

So, if somebody yanks down really hard to test you, you _don't resist _or pull up, but instead press forward letting the arm bend down with the pull, bowing forward like a spring. When this happens, depending on the energy received, you may simply strike out with the rear hand and if needed, you may simultaneously step in with the force. If the jolt is _very _strong, you may step in and apply a butting elbow or shoulder punch. The one thing you don't do is pull back against the force.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 23, 2017)

KPM said:


> we never see it actually being used against an actual opponent who isn't a training partner



Depends on what you mean by "it".

Of course, you won't see choreographed movements or multistep drills. You aren't going to see someone do the dummy form on an opponent either, but the attributes and skills being trained absolutely carry over. That's kind of the point.

A lot of the time, what we're training is unseen even in the drills by those who don't know what they're looking at, such as development of the right muscular connections in the punch, or the elbow conditioning missed for the "techniques".


----------



## KPM (Jun 23, 2017)

^^^^ I don't disagree with that on a basics level.  What I'm talking about are the involved more complicated things like the various "switches" from one side to the other in LS that rely on the guy having his hand up in a proper Wu Sau....like a Wing Chun guy.  Or the multiple step techniques in CS that assume the guy is going to stand straight up in front of you and not "bob & weave" or simply step back and away.  Or the more involved techniques in either LS or CS that only work when the partner is throwing a nice straight centerline punch and keeping both hands on the center.    Show me video of a single real sparring exchange where a Wing Chun guy does something as straight-forward as a Bong/Lop Da motion on one side and then switches it to the other side with another Bong/Lop Da motion on that side.  

So I'm not sure which "attributes and skills" you are developing with the more involved LS training combinations, but the technique combinations themselves certainly don't translate over to real fighting methods that I have ever seen.  Which begs the question.....why not develop those same attributes and skills using techniques that actually DO show up in real fighting??


----------



## KPM (Jun 23, 2017)

*Forgive my lack of Chinese comprehension but if lop sau is translated as 'grabbing hand' or something like it, can the last 2 vids be fairly called lop sau drills?*

---I'm sure LFJ can tell us what the Chinese character for "Lop/Lap/Larp" actually translates to in English, but I like to think if it more as "displacing hand" than "grabbing hand."   Sometimes it latches on and sometimes it just moves something away without grabbing.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 23, 2017)

KPM said:


> What I'm talking about are the involved more complicated things like the various "switches" from one side to the other in LS that rely on the guy having his hand up in a proper Wu Sau....like a Wing Chun guy.



You are simply looking at the exercise in the wrong way, misunderstanding the purpose.

It's not presenting a proper _wu-sau_ so that this next move can be done on them as the next step in a fight.
It's checking and developing proper position and responsiveness of each other's _wu-sau_, among other things.

This is not fighting, but development. Perhaps hard to see if you are just looking on without explanation.



> Or the multiple step techniques in CS that assume the guy is going to stand straight up in front of you and not "bob & weave" or simply step back and away.  Or the more involved techniques in either LS or CS that only work when the partner is throwing a nice straight centerline punch and keeping both hands on the center.    Show me video of a single real sparring exchange where a Wing Chun guy does something as straight-forward as a Bong/Lop Da motion on one side and then switches it to the other side with another Bong/Lop Da motion on that side.



 Again, you are entirely misunderstanding the point of the exercises.



> So I'm not sure which "attributes and skills" you are developing with the more involved LS training combinations,



A myriad of things. Coordination, synchronicity, footwork, power, timing, speed, balance, reflexes, not freezing, not overreacting, etc., etc..

Training dynamically with improvisations checks and develops all of these things in an unpredictable fashion while still in a clean and controlled VT environment, where we can pause and reexamine what needs work.

Again, we're not opponents fighting, but partners developing together.



> but the technique combinations themselves certainly don't translate over to real fighting methods that I have ever seen.



The point is not to train prescribed combinations for an imagined fight.

It's training in such a way as to develop the intuitive ability to act uninterruptedly and with precision.



> Which begs the question.....why not develop those same attributes and skills using techniques that actually DO show up in real fighting??



Like punch, kick, palm, _faak_, _paak_, _jat_, _bong_...?

All of these are used in fighting. Actual sparring and fighting is just simpler than the training.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 23, 2017)

KPM said:


> *Forgive my lack of Chinese comprehension but if lop sau is translated as 'grabbing hand' or something like it, can the last 2 vids be fairly called lop sau drills?*
> 
> ---I'm sure LFJ can tell us what the Chinese character for "Lop/Lap/Larp" actually translates to in English, but I like to think if it more as "displacing hand" than "grabbing hand."   Sometimes it latches on and sometimes it just moves something away without grabbing.



Cantonese speakers usually use this character 擸 while it is uncommonly used in Mandarin, where instead they use this character 拉. Both essentially mean the same thing; to pull.

But, this is kind of like the term _chi-sau _(sticking arms) in how it's a visual description of the exercise, but not what we are actually doing.

The _laap-sau_ drilling platform looks like we are pulling on each other's arms, while we aren't actually using _laap-sau_, but _jat-sau_.


----------



## geezer (Jun 23, 2017)

LFJ said:


> You are simply looking at the exercise in the wrong way, misunderstanding the purpose.
> 
> .... Again, you are entirely misunderstanding the point of the exercises.



LFJ, you make some good points, but again phrased in arrogant and insulting language guaranteed to provoke a hostile response and derail the thread. Why? ...when for once we were having a polite and productive discussion. 

I don't believe KPM's comments were even directed at WSLVT anyway, but more generally at some systems that use Lap-Sau as a platform for elaborate sequences of attacks and counters. My own WT background was guilty of that. And I think his questioning is legitimate.  You know, you could try to strike a more constructive tone. You might be surprised by actually getting a positive response for a change.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 23, 2017)

The raised criticism and confusion regarding the method are the result of a fundamental misconception.
I stated so to say why the criticism is invalid, then explained exactly why that is so. So?

There's no offense to be taken from correction and information.

If the criticized understanding of CS and LS drilling is "correct" by other lineages, then I agree, it's mostly useless, and it just gets harder and harder to believe many people got much of anything from YM.

If someone wants to take offense to that last statement, I might understand, but then, it seems hard to disagree with if you agree that approach is so flawed and impractical.


----------



## geezer (Jun 23, 2017)

LFJ said:


> The raised criticism and confusion regarding the method are the result of a fundamental misconception.
> I stated so to say why the criticism is invalid, then explained exactly why that is so. So? There's no offense to be taken from correction and information.



Oh I see now. We were naively approaching this as an open discussion and sharing ideas. Since your identity is unknown to us, we didn't realize that you were such an absolute authority and that you already had the answers. Now we've cleared that up, I'm sure KPM will thank you for straightening out his misconceptions!


----------



## KPM (Jun 23, 2017)

*You are simply looking at the exercise in the wrong way, misunderstanding the purpose.*

---Not true.  As I said, I've trained that way in the past as well.  And I'm saying with time and experience I no longer see that depth and intricacy of practice within the platform as valuable for real fighting.  Can it develop attributes?  Of course it can!  But I maintain that if you are two or three levels removed from actual reality (dare I say "applying it" in a real situation) then the training is not really as useful as you think.  And there are likely more "realistic" ways to develop similar skills and attributes.  When was the last time you saw a Boxer, Kickboxer, or MMA fighter doing drills that didn't resemble in anyway what they actually planned to do in the ring?


*A myriad of things. Coordination, synchronicity, footwork, power, timing, speed, balance, reflexes, not freezing, not overreacting, etc., etc..*

---All things that could be developed in exercises and drills that actually make use of the  things you would do or "apply" in a real exchange!


*Training dynamically with improvisations checks and develops all of these things in an unpredictable fashion while still in a clean and controlled VT environment, where we can pause and reexamine what needs work.*

---- I've been saying that a real fight is not going to be in a "VT environment" and what works in a "VT environment" may not work in a "real" environment.   Fight the way you  train and train the way you fight.  


*Again, we're not opponents fighting, but partners developing together.*

----And if the partner that is assisting your development is not providing you with the type of responses and feedback that you would actually face in a real exchange, then how valuable are the things you are actually developing?  Unless you plan on fighting other Wing Chun guys?  Which might not be out of the question given how you carry on discussion here!  


*The point is not to train prescribed combinations for an imagined fight.*

---I agree.  The point should be to train skills, attributes, and reactions that would apply to a real fight.  If your training partner is just giving you the feedback and responses of a fellow Wing Chun guy, then I would say that is not as useful in a real fight as you seem to think.  


*It's training in such a way as to develop the intuitive ability to act uninterruptedly and with precision*.

---With precision that works on another Wing Chun guy.  Because if it isn't being trained against non-Wing Chun responses, how useful is it really going to be???


*Like punch, kick, palm, faak, paak, jat, bong...?  All of these are used in fighting. Actual sparring and fighting is just simpler than the training.*

---Sure.  They are used in fighting....but not against a fellow Wing Chun guy as you are training them.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 24, 2017)

KPM said:


> *You are simply looking at the exercise in the wrong way, misunderstanding the purpose.*
> 
> ---Not true.  As I said, I've trained that way in the past as well.



Obviously not, since you don't understand it.



> I maintain that if you are two or three levels removed from actual reality (dare I say "applying it" in a real situation) then the training is not really as useful as you think.



Forms training also relatively useless then? Should jump straight into sparring, huh?



> And there are likely more "realistic" ways to develop similar skills and attributes.  When was the last time you saw a Boxer, Kickboxer, or MMA fighter doing drills that didn't resemble in anyway what they actually planned to do in the ring?



It doesn't not resemble it in any way. Just not in the way you imagine.



> *A myriad of things. Coordination, synchronicity, footwork, power, timing, speed, balance, reflexes, not freezing, not overreacting, etc., etc..*
> 
> ---All things that could be developed in exercises and drills that actually make use of the  things you would do or "apply" in a real exchange!



Punch, kick, palm, _wu_, _faak_, _paak_, _jat_, _bong_... All tools for fighting.

We will also train these things in pre-sparring drills, and actual sparring that can introduce other styles.

As stated, everything is in stages. You must be shown the big picture and how it all fits together.



> ---- I've been saying that a real fight is not going to be in a "VT environment" and what works in a "VT environment" may not work in a "real" environment.



You keep saying "work" as if CS and LS is some sort of pseudo-sparring match. It is not.



> *Again, we're not opponents fighting, but partners developing together.*
> 
> ----And if the partner that is assisting your development is not providing you with the type of responses and feedback that you would actually face in a real exchange, then how valuable are the things you are actually developing?  Unless you plan on fighting other Wing Chun guys?  Which might not be out of the question given how you carry on discussion here!



And once again, you must see the big picture.
This is merely one stage of training, and not yet pre-sparring drills or free sparring/fighting.



> ---I agree.  The point should be to train skills, attributes, and reactions that would apply to a real fight.  If your training partner is just giving you the feedback and responses of a fellow Wing Chun guy, then I would say that is not as useful in a real fight as you seem to think.



Do you think there is value in training SNT and having someone come and suddenly slap to check your _wu-sau_?

You probably think that's "unrealistic" because they don't do it with a haymaker. Right?...



> *It's training in such a way as to develop the intuitive ability to act uninterruptedly and with precision*.
> 
> ---With precision that works on another Wing Chun guy.  Because if it isn't being trained against non-Wing Chun responses, how useful is it really going to be???



Precision that works against any style, because _it is_ trained against non-WC responses.

Again, stages... big picture...



> *Like punch, kick, palm, faak, paak, jat, bong...?  All of these are used in fighting. Actual sparring and fighting is just simpler than the training.*
> 
> ---Sure.  They are used in fighting....but not against a fellow Wing Chun guy as you are training them.



They are not just trained against a fellow VT guy.

Again, stages... big picture...


----------



## KPM (Jun 24, 2017)

*Obviously not, since you don't understand it.*

----Now you're just being argumentative again.

*Forms training also relatively useless then? Should jump straight into sparring, huh?*

---They may be useless if you see them as this grand abstraction that don't really teach how to use the techniques in a real situation.  Personally I don't seem them as so abstract.   As you are fond of pointing out, I see them as teaching applications for use.  So I don't see the forms that I do as "useless" at all!


*It doesn't not resemble it in any way. Just not in the way you imagine.*

---And again, if what you are training is several levels away from real-time application....several steps removed from reality....then it might not be as useful as you think!


*We will also train these things in pre-sparring drills, and actual sparring that can introduce other styles.*

---Ok, great!  Let's see it!

*As stated, everything is in stages. You must be shown the big picture and how it all fits together.*

---See, that's part of the problem......thinking that there is a "big picture" that has to "come together" to be useful, rather than learning how to apply things simply and directly in the way they are going to actually be used in a real situation.  Now, there can be an overall strategy that one uses....ring fighters use that as a "big picture"....but thinking that you are learning all these techniques and fighting methods on an abstract, "non-application" level and they will somehow come together in the "big picture" later just seems very unrealistic to me.  Train the way you fight and fight the way you train.



*Do you think there is value in training SNT and having someone come and suddenly slap to check your wu-sau?*

----Yes. That is a very straight-forward test of good structure and technique.  Not abstract at all.  Not removed from reality at all.  Simple and direct.



*Precision that works against any style, because it is trained against non-WC responses.*

---Great!  Show THAT to us then.   After all, you wouldn't believe Phil Redmond when he said he used TWC successfully in sparring/fighting and asked him to prove it by showing video.   I don't believe that all of your complicated and intricate LS platform drilling and switching etc. is going to be all that useful in sparring/fighting.  So prove it.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 24, 2017)

KPM said:


> *Forms training also relatively useless then? Should jump straight into sparring, huh?*
> 
> ---They may be useless if you see them as this grand abstraction that don't really teach how to use the techniques in a real situation.  Personally I don't seem them as so abstract.   As you are fond of pointing out, I see them as teaching applications for use.  So I don't see the forms that I do as "useless" at all!



The abstraction does train behaviors for fighting. It is just that the forms are not as-is applications.

I'm sure you don't apply things with one arm standing in YJKYM while chambering the other fist at your side. Right?



> *It doesn't not resemble it in any way. Just not in the way you imagine.*
> 
> ---And again, if what you are training is several levels away from real-time application....several steps removed from reality....then it might not be as useful as you think!



Like your forms, according to this logic. But the logic is flawed.

As long as there are no steps missing up to and including free fighting, then it all fits together to develop functional fighting skill.



> *We will also train these things in pre-sparring drills, and actual sparring that can introduce other styles.*
> 
> ---Ok, great!  Let's see it!



Doors are open around the world if really interested.



> *As stated, everything is in stages. You must be shown the big picture and how it all fits together.*
> 
> ---See, that's part of the problem......thinking that there is a "big picture" that has to "come together" to be useful, rather than learning how to apply things simply and directly in the way they are going to actually be used in a real situation.  Now, there can be an overall strategy that one uses....ring fighters use that as a "big picture"....but thinking that you are learning all these techniques and fighting methods on an abstract, "non-application" level and they will somehow come together in the "big picture" later just seems very unrealistic to me.  Train the way you fight and fight the way you train.



In seems unrealistic to you because you have no experience of this type of training system, don't really understand it, and are only left to draw inaccurate conclusions. I suggest going to experience it hands-on.



> *Do you think there is value in training SNT and having someone come and suddenly slap to check your wu-sau?*
> 
> ----Yes. That is a very straight-forward test of good structure and technique.



Then you should have no problem with CS and LS drills that do exactly this while progressively adding more dynamics to test everything, not just _wu-sau_, along the way.

It's in essence no different, and even closer to "reality" since it is involving actual full-body motion.



> Not abstract at all.  Not removed from reality at all.  Simple and direct.



So, you think it is entirely realistic that one will be standing in YJKYM, with one arm chambered to the side, and have an attacker come and slap their _wu-sau_?

You don't seem to have a working concept of abstract vs reality. Get that fixed, and things might begin to make more sense.



> *Precision that works against any style, because it is trained against non-WC responses.*
> 
> ---Great!  Show THAT to us then.



You're welcome to go check it out if interested.



> After all, you wouldn't believe Phil Redmond when he said he used TWC successfully in sparring/fighting and asked him to prove it by showing video.



No, I didn't. I've never asked anyone for videos not already on Youtube. The only time I've asked for video, was to have certain things pointed out that I was not seeing in the many fighting videos that already exist for viewing online. I don't demand videos from people.

The only proof I've asked Phil for is of his claims to having been a competitive fighter, since he uses that justification all the time to try and shut people up, but I've been unable to find any record or anything whatsoever to corroborate that... And he never answers.



> I don't believe that all of your complicated and intricate LS platform drilling and switching etc. is going to be all that useful in sparring/fighting.  So prove it.



I don't particularly care what you believe, but if genuinely interested, you can go check it out any time.


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 24, 2017)

geezer said:


> LFJ, you make some good points, *but again phrased in arrogant and insulting language*



TBH, to me, his comments did not come across like that at all. Just my .02. Thx.

...now, carry on peeps!


----------



## LFJ (Jun 24, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> TBH, to me, his comments did not come across like that at all.



Right? They were not put across that way either. Some people just want to be offended.

Now this clear mocking tone might be considered insulting, but my feelings aren't hurt:



geezer said:


> Oh I see now. We were naively approaching this as an open discussion and sharing ideas. Since your identity is unknown to us, we didn't realize that you were such an absolute authority and that you already had the answers. Now we've cleared that up, I'm sure KPM will thank you for straightening out his misconceptions!



The thing is, it's not about me being some authority...

It's that, if you find yourself agreeing with KPM, then you believe WC has no long-range game whatsoever, it consistently fails in sparring and fighting, and it's close-range training methods are unrealistic and won't help you in sparring or fighting either.

So, you're basically admitting that WC is entirely impractical.

What then are you doing wasting your time with non-functional WC??
Why are you not just doing Western Boxing?


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 24, 2017)

LFJ said:


> ...if you find yourself agreeing with KPM, then you believe WC has no long-range game whatsoever, it consistently fails in sparring and fighting, and it's close-range training methods are unrealistic and won't help you in sparring or fighting either. So, you're basically admitting that WC is entirely impractical.
> What then are you doing wasting your time with non-functional WC?? Why are you not just doing Western Boxing?



I agree. Have been saying this to fellow Chunners for many years who only seem to know or care for the close in stuff.
Long bridge WC may look a bit "off norm" to main-stream WC/WT/VT...but it is there...for a reason... 
You can't have one without the other. You can't have an outer without an inner; an up without a down; and long without a short.
Hence...from the Wuji...we have a cool sweet idea called yin - yang!!!!   
At the death of 'long range'...is birthed the 'short range'


----------



## geezer (Jun 24, 2017)

LFJ said:


> .*..if you find yourself agreeing with KPM,* *then you believe WC has no long-range game whatsoever,* it consistently fails in sparring and fighting, and it's close-range training methods are unrealistic and won't help you in sparring or fighting either. So, you're basically admitting that WC is entirely impractical. *What then are you doing wasting your time with non-functional WC?? Why are you not just doing Western Boxing?*



I can't say if I agree with KPM as I really don't know what he believes. His explorations have taken him from TWC to Pin Sun to JKD to Alan Orr's CSL and recently back to TWC. He has also researched historical Western pugilism among other things.

I do like to be honest with myself, and often play devil's advocate. So when talking about a long-range game, I note that the VT/WT I have seen and/or trained favors _infighting_. While it does have some longer range tactics, the long-range "game" or strategy is typically designed to set up and bait the opponent into creating an opportunity for the VT/WC fighter to explosively move into the close range where our techniques shine.

Now different lineages of YMVT/WT teach significantly different methods for dealing with being on the outside and closing, and some prefer to work in closer than others. To use the old cliche, _your milage may very. _But to say that if you don't think VT/WC is best applied at longer ranges hardly implies that you should dump the system and take just up boxing ...any more than saying that because VT/WC doesn't have a sophisticated grappling and ground game is reason to dump the system and just train BJJ!

If, as I believe, VT/WC is designed as a close-range striking system what's wrong with that? Our long-rang game, indeed our entire game, is designed to bring us in close and put us into a position of greatest advantage. I would think this is something that we agree on.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 24, 2017)

geezer said:


> But to say that if you don't think VT/WC is best applied at longer ranges hardly implies that you should dump the system and take just up boxing



Didn't say that. It's the combination, according to KPM, of there being no long-range game, and the short-range training methods being impractical and unlikely to help you in a fight. Doesn't leave you with... anything else then, does it?



> If, as I believe, VT/WC is designed as a close-range striking system what's wrong with that?



According to KPM, the training method is impractical and won't help you in a fight, so there's a lot wrong with it, if you agree with his understanding of the system.


----------



## geezer (Jun 24, 2017)

You know what would really be great? --If we could see some more clips of what different folks think is a good VT/WC at the long range, or of moving in from long-to short range. I'd especially like to see some WSLVT demonstrating this in in manner that meets with LFJ's approval. I know he has already explained a bit about this in the past, and I grant that he writes well, but for me personally, a video would make this so much easier to comprehend. 

OK, here's an example of a very basic approach to closing range by Emin. 

Several times he mentions the "magnetic zone" theory. The analogy is to two magnetic balls set down near each other on a flat surface. At a long range, they are outside each others magnetic fields and don't roll towards each other. But when you move one closer, into the magnetic "zone" of the other, their magnetic attraction will cause them to suddenly snap together. 

Applied to fighting, when you are outside your the range of your opponent's longest attacking technique, you are "outside his magnetic field" and not in danger, so you don't need to move. When your opponent starts to attack,he must move into the range ...into your "magnetic zone" and you snap explosively forward into him, just as he moves towards you. This is pretty much the same as the old WC/VT/WT maxim, "When your opponent moves_, you move!"_.


----------



## KPM (Jun 24, 2017)

LFJ said:


> It's that, if you find yourself agreeing with KPM, then you believe WC has no long-range game whatsoever, it consistently fails in sparring and fighting, and it's close-range training methods are unrealistic and won't help you in sparring or fighting either.
> 
> So, you're basically admitting that WC is entirely impractical.
> 
> ...



Geez!  Did you actually bother to even read my posts in the "Wing Chun Boxing" thread?     I clearly stated there is a difference between having a strategy to move from long range into close range and having an actual "long range game."  I defined pretty well what I thought a "long range game" consists of.  You said that Wing Chun has a "long range game" (as opposed to a "long range strategy") and yet were never able to back that claim up. 

Wing Chun fails fairly regularly in sparring/fighting.  Just do your own survey of youtube clips.  That's NOT to say that there are no Wing Chun people that do well in sparring.  But the Wing Chun people that do well in sparring seem to be abandoning good Wing Chun biomechanics to do so.  But don't believe, research it yourself on youtube.  And before you say it....no, youtube is not the "be all" and "end all" authority on fighting.  But given the number of Wing Chun sparring clips that ARE on youtube, you can get a pretty good feel for it.  And just watch how many times they end up resorting to something that bears as much resemblance to boxing as it does to their Wing Chun structure they have spent so many hours developing.  

Classical Wing Chun's in-close, involved, and complicated training in LS and CS is not realistic and all that useful against anyone other than a fellow Wing Chun guy.  I've already explained why.  Don't believe me?  Again, just watch the numerous Wing Chun sparring clips on youtube and find one that shows any of the involved combinations of movements typically trained in LS and CS.   A good rule of thumb that I learned from FMAs is that  if something involves more than a 3 count to execute, then it is not likely to work in reality.   I've found that to hold true in my own sparring.  

And, as I already explained on the other thread, I don't believe Wing Chun is impractical at all.  I believe it can bring a lot of  good things to boxing just as boxing can bring a lot of good things to Wing Chun.

On the other hand, if you find yourself agreeing with LFJ, then you believe that VT training is somewhat abstract and teaches no actual applications for real fighting.  All the forms are abstract and teach principles and biomechanics, but no techniques to be applied to real fighting.  The drills and training are abstract and don't apply directly to real fighting.   The attributes and skills learned from VT training may show up in real fighting, but evidently they are not recognizable as actual VT techniques.  VT as LFJ describes it seems almost the opposite of the maxim to "Fight the way you train and train the way you fight."   Everything is about training the elbow and the punch. But there only seems to be one kind of punch.  VT training progresses to live sparring, but evidently no one in the entire world has posted videos of VT consistently sparring non-Wing Chun guys successfully using all of these abstract skills developed.

So my new approach, and I admit that it is not for everyone, is to take something that is known to work well in sparring/fighting world-wide (Boxing) and refine it and expand it with good Wing Chun principles and skills on the inside ranges.  Take something that at baseline provides good fighting skills, and then use Wing Chun with it.  LFJ's approach would be to train something on an abstract level with no direct application for many years until at some point the "big picture" can come together to produce a good fighter.   Nothing wrong with that approach!   But from my perspective I would say it is not as efficient.


----------



## geezer (Jun 24, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Didn't say that. It's the combination, according to KPM, of there being no long-range game, and the short-range training methods being impractical and unlikely to help you in a fight. Doesn't leave you with... anything else then, does it?
> ...According to KPM, the training method is impractical and won't help you in a fight, so there's a lot wrong with it, if you agree with his understanding of the system.



Regardless of how some of his past posts may have been worded, I don't think he believes WC/VT to be inherently useless, otherwise why would he still be training it? On the other hand, he seems to me to be a questioning type always be searching for better and more effective training methods. You, by contrast seem very satisfied with the WSLVT method you train as it is. 

This may reflect the relative merits and efficacy of your respective WC/VT systems. But I think it is more likely reflective of your very distinct personality types and outlook on the world. ...That's just an outside observation. I'll let KPM speak for himself!


----------



## geezer (Jun 24, 2017)

Whoops -- I was busy writing post #138 while KPM was already posting his reply to LFJ in post #137. Makes my comment seem pretty superfluous.


----------



## KPM (Jun 24, 2017)

From what I have seen, Alan Orr does not do the complicated combo's and transitions with the Lop Sau platform.  You saw the video of how he trains it.   Alan Orr also does not teach complicated multi-step techniques in Chi Sau (like the Lat Sau program that many use).  You can find plenty of clips of Alan doing Chi Sau and it is all about good structure and technique using very straight-forward methods.  Alan has a good eye for what is practical because he and his guys spar with it all the time.

In our training session today I showed my guys how to use two classic punches from Pin Sun Wing Chun....the Biu Choi and the Gwai Choi....off the Bong Sau but with a Boxing biomechanic and flowing directly into a Boxing combo for follow up.  Worked great, and would be very unexpected angles for a boxer unfamiliar with these punches to deal with.  There is a lot that Wing Chun can bring to a basic western boxing foundation.  And a western boxing foundation brings to Wing Chun that ability to fight pretty well from the "git go".


----------



## geezer (Jun 24, 2017)

KPM -- how do you feel modern Western boxing complements WC/VT better than say historical Western pugilism from the bare knuckle era 0f the 18th and 19th Centuries. I know that some would maintain that early pugilism is not an inferior method, but in fact a better method when applied in a bare-knuckle rule-set.

Also, my instincts tell me that it is not the technique of WV/VT fighting that are so lacking, as the training methods. Too little emphasis on resistance training and sparring, vs. too much emphasis on drilling techniques by themselves. I'll re-post Thornton's clip of the _I-Method _to show what we are missing (see around 4:35):






It seems like this is what Alan Orr is really stressing, far more than any of the hooey pushed by Hendrick, etc.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 24, 2017)

KPM said:


> the Wing Chun people that do well in sparring seem to be abandoning good Wing Chun biomechanics to do so.  But don't believe, research it yourself on youtube.



Oh, I believe you.



> Classical Wing Chun's in-close, involved, and complicated training in LS and CS is not realistic and all that useful against anyone other than a fellow Wing Chun guy.  I've already explained why.  Don't believe me?  Again, just watch the numerous Wing Chun sparring clips on youtube and find one that shows any of the involved combinations of movements typically trained in LS and CS.



Ah, geez.  Still looking for CS and LS combos to show up in a fight, or to "work" against other styles?

It has gone so far over your head you didn't even feel the wind!



> The attributes and skills learned from VT training may show up in real fighting, but evidently they are not recognizable as actual VT techniques.  VT as LFJ describes it seems almost the opposite of the maxim to "Fight the way you train and train the way you fight."



Punch, kick, _plam_, _faak_, _wu_, _paak_, _jat_, _bong_ aren't recognizable VT tools?



> LFJ's approach would be to train something on an abstract level with no direct application for many years until at some point the "big picture" can come together to produce a good fighter.   Nothing wrong with that approach!   But from my perspective I would say it is not as efficient.



You can have no idea how efficient something is if you have no clear conception of what it actually is.

It does not take many years. You are making things up because you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 24, 2017)

geezer said:


> Regardless of how some of his past posts may have been worded, I don't think he believes WC/VT to be inherently useless, otherwise why would he still be training it?



Good question! Many people continue to do irrational things for unexplainable reasons.

I think because he has dedicated so much time to it and being able to teach makes him feel good about himself, though the insecurity and self-doubt is painfully obvious at times.



> I think it is more likely reflective of your very distinct personality types and outlook on the world.



Ha! What's my outlook on the world?

I didn't even start MA training with VT. I came from other effective styles.
I already knocked teeth out and had teeth knocked out.
If VT didn't work, I wouldn't waste time on it.

When I first came to VT, I saw a lot of crap, then settled into a lineage I thought was good.

Then I discovered my understanding, though better than the average crap, was filled with holes, and I continued learning in another direction.

Now I have no questions or uncertainties about the system, but I'm still willing to change if something better can be demonstrated to me. But so far, in YMVT, other lineages have not been worth a second look.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 24, 2017)

geezer said:


> the _I-Method_



This is a good method for technique-based martial arts, so long as the technique is realistic.

VT isn't one that teaches 1:1 applications, so it takes a different method.

VT is about developing a certain behavior for fighting with a few simple tools, so it focuses on developing this and correcting errors through its unique training methods.

Difficult to understand for those who have no experience with this and are only familiar with technique-based approaches to fighting.

Many false assumptions can be made and inaccurate conclusions drawn when one hasn't experienced it firsthand.


----------



## KPM (Jun 24, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Many false assumptions can be made and inaccurate conclusions drawn when one hasn't experienced it firsthand.



And when people seem adverse to posting videos showing how all those abstract training methods actually work in a real situation......


----------



## KPM (Jun 24, 2017)

*how do you feel modern Western boxing complements WC/VT better than say historical Western pugilism from the bare knuckle era 0f the 18th and 19th Centuries. I know that some would maintain that early pugilism is not an inferior method, but in fact a better method when applied in a bare-knuckle rule-set.*

----Now that is a perfect example of a fighting method evolving!   I truly believe that the Tysons, Lamenchenkos, Mayweathers, and Alis of today would destroy any of those old-timers, regardless of the rule sets.  The old school method is not nearly as fast or mobile as modern boxing.  You can see that in old footage that exists.  They just look a bit awkward and slow compared to modern fighters.  And I don't say this lightly.  I spent a good amount of time researching old boxing manuals and really working on reproducing what they did.  If you really look at Martin Austwick's stuff, I think he is letting a little too much of his modern boxing influence creep into what he is doing.  The old school method was very much a "one punch at a time" kind of exchange compared to the numerous rapid combinations of punches used today.  That more or less "sideways" positioning in the old school method narrowed and made the target smaller and harder to hit for the opponent at the expense of making the rear hand less responsive and useable as a weapon.  You saw from my youtube series how well the old school boxing methods can match up to "classical" Wing Chun.   But I quickly decided that neither the old school boxing method nor the Wing Chun really benefited from the combination.   However, as I've explained elsewhere, its a different case with modern boxing methods and Wing Chun.


*Also, my instincts tell me that it is not the technique of WV/VT fighting that are so lacking, as the training methods. Too little emphasis on resistance training and sparring, vs. too much emphasis on drilling techniques by themselves.*

----Very true!  If Wing Chun guys want to be known as fighters, then they need to start training more like fighters.  And just doing forms and Chi Sau ain't it!  

* I'll re-post Thornton's clip of the I-Method to show what we are missing (see around 4:35):*

---Great clip!  And if you really listen to what he is saying, it is much the same thing I have been trying to say on this thread.  However, it seems to have gone right over LFJ's head, based on his response!


----------



## geezer (Jun 24, 2017)

KPM said:


> *I'll re-post Thornton's clip of the I-Method to show what we are missing (see around 4:35):*
> 
> ---Great clip!  And if you really listen to what he is saying, it is much the same thing I have been trying to say on this thread.  However, it seems to have gone right over LFJ's head, based on his response!



Nope. It didn't go "over his head". He simply doesn't agree as far as his VT is concerned. He is very satisfied with the results of his training. And one thing LFJ said that did make sense to me was: _VT is about developing a certain behavior for fighting with a few simple tools, so it focuses on developing this and correcting errors through its unique training methods.
_
I agree in that I think that all real fighting is more about "developing a certain behavior for fighting with a few simple tools..."   --than collecting a bag of tricks. Ironically, I see this as supporting your position in our original discussion of overly complicated _lat-sau_ and _chi-sau_ routines. I see VT/WC as learning a way to move, a way to fight. The complicated routines can ultimately be a distraction.


----------



## KPM (Jun 24, 2017)

geezer said:


> Nope. It didn't go "over his head". He simply doesn't agree as far as his VT is concerned. He is very satisfied with the results of his training. And one thing LFJ said that did make sense to me was: _VT is about developing a certain behavior for fighting with a few simple tools, so it focuses on developing this and correcting errors through its unique training methods.
> _
> .



Yeah, I guess you're probably right!   The problem is, there is very little evidence that it actually works.  When WSLVT guys start winning sparring bouts with non-Wing Chun people on a regular basis....and actually providing the video evidence of it for all to see, then I'll be willing to start believing that it is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread!    Until then, I'll stick to my "application-based" method and things that have actually been proven to work.


----------



## geezer (Jun 24, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Ha! What's my outlook on the world?



Dunno for sure. But obviously pretty different from KPM's. For one thing, you have found what you are looking for and express great confidence in the WSL-VT you have trained. KPM is still looking for a system or combination of systems that will be more effective. You speak as one who believes in what you know. KPM speaks from an almost agnostic perspective, searching, but also seeming to doubt that pre-digested answers exist.

The believer and the agnostic. You see the problem.




LFJ said:


> I didn't even start MA training with VT. I came from other effective styles.
> I already knocked teeth out and had teeth knocked out.



No _gumshields?_

Seriously, when I was young, I also knocked out a guy's tooth --with a head butt. Yeah, I was a real hard-man. 

Oh ...did I mention it happened playing a game of Frisbee? A very effective style!


----------



## geezer (Jun 24, 2017)

KPM said:


> Yeah, I guess you're probably right!   The problem is, there is very little evidence that it actually works.



_Wrong again_. There are countless videos to back up these claims.


....unfortunately, we'll never see them.


----------



## Marnetmar (Jun 25, 2017)

Not to be that guy, but the WT version of the lap sau drill is wonky as hell. How can you call it a useful drill if neither of you are even using bong sau for its intended purpose? If you're just holding your arm there in a vaguely bong-sau position instead of making the contact and spiraling forward to deflect, of course the guy can just step in and punch right over it!

What is even the purpose of that version of the drill and how does it do anything other than create bad habits?


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> And when people seem adverse to posting videos showing how all those abstract training methods actually work in a real situation......



......grown men cry about it on internet forums.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

geezer said:


> Nope. It didn't go "over his head". He simply doesn't agree as far as his VT is concerned_._



Correct.



> I agree in that I think that all real fighting is more about "developing a certain behavior for fighting with a few simple tools..."   --than collecting a bag of tricks. Ironically, I see this as supporting your position in our original discussion of overly complicated _lat-sau_ and _chi-sau_ routines. I see VT/WC as learning a way to move, a way to fight. The complicated routines can ultimately be a distraction.



Something that KPM seems to be confused about, is that WSLVT doesn't have 20-step choreography for LS or CS "sections".

There are some simple actions and appropriate responses taught to beginners, then improvisations from there. It is not teaching fight choreography, but principles of movement and skill development/ error correction.

None of this is prearranged or 4+step choreography. It's not fighting, but a stage of training before sparring/fighting to develop certain skills, and after sparring/fighting to correct errors discovered under pressure.

To understand the training method and goal, you have to know what you're doing form the very beginning. You can't look at a later stage of training with no knowledge of the method and draw any informed conclusions on efficiency or efficacy.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

geezer said:


> For one thing, you have found what you are looking for and express great confidence in the WSL-VT you have trained. KPM is still looking for a system or combination of systems that will be more effective. You speak as one who believes in what you know. KPM speaks from an almost agnostic perspective, searching, but also seeming to doubt that pre-digested answers exist.
> 
> The believer and the agnostic. You see the problem.



Well, you are incorrect about that.

Having satisfaction and confidence in what I train does not mean my cup is full.
I wouldn't have gotten to where I am now if I were that type of person. Would've stayed with earlier interpretations.

I simply have not found better VT at this point, but will be making the switch once again as soon as I do!


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

LFJ said:


> ......grown men cry about it on internet forums.



While other grown men go on and on about it and how much better their  beliefs are than everyone else's while expecting everyone to have faith without evidence as if they belonged to some kind of cult.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> While other grown men go on and on about it and how much better their  beliefs are than everyone else's while expecting everyone to have faith without evidence as if they belonged to some kind of cult.



Uh, no. I don't care to have you believe what the system I train in involves.
You can either go verify it yourself, or stay home. Doesn't matter to me.

But, you have admitted the WC you know is incomplete, flawed, and impractical.
So, you are basically admitting the inferiority of most WC yourself. I need not say anything.


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

*Something that KPM seems to be confused about, is that WSLVT doesn't have 20-step choreography for LS or CS "sections".*

---It still has a pretty involved drilling format for both.

*None of this is prearranged or 4+step choreography. It's not fighting, but a stage of training before sparring/fighting to develop certain skills, and after sparring/fighting to correct errors discovered under pressure.*

---Then why do we never see WSLVT videos of the sparring/fighting where these skills are being used?


*To understand the training method and goal, you have to know what you're doing form the very beginning. You can't look at a later stage of training with no knowledge of the method and draw any informed conclusions on efficiency or efficacy.*

---Sure you can.  The end product either works or it doesn't.  No one needs to know the details of every step that got to the end product.   And then you look at long it takes to get to that end product.  If you can't fight well until that end product is achieved, and it takes several years to achieve the end product....then that isn't very efficient!  Waiting for the "big picture" to come together at the end of the training before you have something workable is not very efficient!






---Once again......a clip with lots of Chi Sau and training drills and not a single second showing all those skills being applied in sparring.  And I will maintain that all those switches from  side to  side with repeated Bong Saus that we see in nearly every PB video is simply not going to work against a non-Wing Chun person that doesn't throw nice straight punches along the centerline.


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Uh, no. I don't care to have you believe what the system I train in involves.
> You can either go verify it yourself, or stay home. Doesn't matter to me.
> 
> But, you have admitted the WC you know is incomplete, flawed, and impractical.
> So, you are basically admitting the inferiority of most WC yourself. I need not say anything.



No, I believe Wing Chun works fine for what it  was designed for.  But I think fighting has changed somewhat over time and Wing Chun needs a reboot.


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 25, 2017)

LFJ said:


>



Sorry Gents...not specifically related to thread topic but...

Question for the WSLVT folks: watch what PB does to his training partner at the :42 mark. He seems to disrupt the guys stance with a sidewards leg/kicking motion.
Does that tripping leg motion have a name in WSLVT? Thx.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> ---It still has a pretty involved drilling format for both.



Involved, as in difficult for you, as an uninformed onlooker to comprehend. So?



> ---Then why do we never see WSLVT videos of the sparring/fighting where these skills are being used?



For much of the same reason you don't see tutorials either.



> ---Sure you can.  The end product either works or it doesn't.  No one needs to know the details of every step that got to the end product.   And then you look at long it takes to get to that end product.  If you can't fight well until that end product is achieved, and it takes several years to achieve the end product....then that isn't very efficient!



But, you don't even know what the end product is supposed to be...

It doesn't take several years. You're talking out of your uninformed yet biased 4th POC.



> ---Once again......a clip with lots of Chi Sau and training drills and not a single second showing all those skills being applied in sparring.



Correct. You gonna cry about it?



> And I will maintain that all those switches from  side to  side with repeated Bong Saus that we see in nearly every PB video is simply not going to work against a non-Wing Chun person that doesn't throw nice straight punches along the centerline.



Again?

I don't know if you're genuinely retarded or what, but you have been told repeatedly, for years, that is not the point.

It's like you have some mental block that won't allow you to see it as anything other than a fight.



KPM said:


> No, I believe Wing Chun works fine for what it  was designed for.  But I think fighting has changed somewhat over time and Wing Chun needs a reboot.



Fighting in the past never had long-range occur? Don't think I believe you.

How do you know WC works fine at short-range if no one ever seems to get there?


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 25, 2017)

LFJ said:


> 4th POC



 wow hahaha haven't heard that one in a long time


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Does that tripping leg motion have a name in WSLVT?



It's called "watch your footwork!"


----------



## iain_meyers (Jun 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> *Something that KPM seems to be confused about, is that WSLVT doesn't have 20-step choreography for LS or CS "sections".*
> 
> ---It still has a pretty involved drilling format for both.
> 
> ...



I'm confused. I have been reading this discussion and LFJ seems to be saying that the drills in wing chun develop attributes for fighting, but are not fighting. I think this is pretty clear?

Why then do you keep on expecting to see applications of techniques in the wing chun drilling? It makes no sense?


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

iain_meyers said:


> I'm confused. I have been reading this discussion and LFJ seems to be saying that the drills in wing chun develop attributes for fighting, but are not fighting. I think this is pretty clear?
> 
> Why then do you keep on expecting to see applications of techniques in the wing chun drilling? It makes no sense?



Did you watch the Matt Thornton video?  If a drill develops attributes but is not for fighting, then that really counts as conditioning and not "sport-specific" development, to use Thornton's terms.   If what you are practicing does not apply directly to a real encounter, then that isn't a very efficient way to train.  Boxers don't train that way.  Kickboxers don't train that way.  MMA fighters don't train that way.  If you can see no "applications of techniques" in your drilling....in other words your drilling doesn't resemble what is going to actually be happening in a real exchange, then you have to  wonder how efficient your training is.  You should "fight the way you train and train the way you fight."   Doesn't that make sense?


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

*Involved, as in difficult for you, as an uninformed onlooker to comprehend. So?*

----Now you are just being argumentative again!

*For much of the same reason you don't see tutorials either.*

----Oh yeah!  The whole....we don't "cast pearls before swine" attitude.  Like you are protecting some kind of precious knowledge.  That is an archaic and pretty pointless attitude in today's world.  What if someone saw something that made sense to them in a video or "tutorial" about WSLVT and was able to incorporate it into their Ip Man Wing Chun for the better and improved what they do?  Wouldn't that be a good thing for Ip Man WIng Chun as a whole?  Why hold back information that may help others?  In the old days groups protected their methods from being known by others because they had to worry about someone showing up on their doorstep and using it against them.  But no one is going to come to your school and challenge you to mortal combat in this day and age!  If you feel that Ip Man Wing Chun as a whole is "substandard" and wasn't taught or learned properly, why aren't you here trying to help people improve their Ip Man Wing Chun?  Why are you not sharing freely and trying to help rather than just lurking in the forum looking for things you can criticize and argue about?  When was the last time you started your own thread  to share something positive and useful about your WSLVT training with the rest of us????



*But, you don't even know what the end product is supposed to be...*

----Well, I assumed the end product is supposed to be a fighting method that works well against people doing something other than Wing Chun.   Is that wrong??  You aren't training to be an effective fighter?  I guess that would explain a lot!  



*I don't know if you're genuinely retarded or what, but you have been told repeatedly, for years, that is not the point.*

---Oh, I'm not the retarded one here!  I've pointed out for awhile that I have yet to see how those skills show up in sparring.  So I don't care what you think the "point" is.   I care about effectiveness and efficiency.


*It's like you have some mental block that won't allow you to see it as anything other than a fight.*

---And you seem to have a mental block that won't allow you to admit that you really don't have anything that backs up all the claims you make about WSLVT.   Sure, you just turn around and say...."I don't care whether you believe me or not"......yet you will argue about something at great length when someone doesn't believe you!!!  Go figure!!!  It certainly seems to me that you care what people believe!  



*
How do you know WC works fine at short-range if no one ever seems to get there?*

----What you are talking about?  No one has ever said a Wing Chun guy can't get to close range.  In fact I showed multiple videos to illustrate the point that most Wing Chun guys just step right into close range and  start going at it, with no long-range game or even a real strategy.  Haven't you even been paying attention?


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> Did you watch the Matt Thornton video?  If a drill develops attributes but is not for fighting, then that really counts as conditioning and not "sport-specific" development, to use Thornton's terms.   If what you are practicing does not apply directly to a real encounter, then that isn't a very efficient way to train.  Boxers don't train that way.  Kickboxers don't train that way.  MMA fighters don't train that way.  If you can see no "applications of techniques" in your drilling....in other words your drilling doesn't resemble what is going to actually be happening in a real exchange, then you have to  wonder how efficient your training is.  You should "fight the way you train and train the way you fight."   Doesn't that make sense?



The guy's talking about technique-based martial arts training.

Fighting behaviors developed or corrected by the VT method are "sport-specific" and do apply directly to fighting.

They just aren't 1:1 techniques, but fighting habits that enable an instinctive uninterrupted onslaught.

You simply fail to comprehend how this works because you have never experienced such an approach to fighting.



KPM said:


> ----Oh yeah!  The whole....we don't "cast pearls before swine" attitude.  Like you are protecting some kind of precious knowledge.  That is an archaic and pretty pointless attitude in today's world.



There are a ton of charlatans in the WC world who pass off bits as the whole.

Dropping them crumbs is doing no one a favor, especially not the VT system.

Best to show just enough that might pique the interest of serious people who will come and learn properly.

You can disagree and handle your WC however you choose.



> *But, you don't even know what the end product is supposed to be...*
> 
> ----Well, I assumed the end product is supposed to be a fighting method that works well against people doing something other than Wing Chun.   Is that wrong??



And it does that, but you are confused about exactly how and what that looks like.

You are not justified in judging the efficiency or efficacy of the training method if you neither understand the method, nor have seen the end product.

You are not being agnostic as you should, but concluding negatively from an uninformed yet clearly biased opinion.



> I've pointed out for awhile that I have yet to see how those skills show up in sparring.  So I don't care what you think the "point" is.   I care about effectiveness and efficiency.



You should care what the point is, because you don't even know what to be looking for in order to be able to judge.



> ---And you seem to have a mental block that won't allow you to admit that you really don't have anything that backs up all the claims you make about WSLVT.



Doors are open around the world. I don't know what you're afraid of.

You've been on a years-long mission to debunk WSLVT, but don't dare step foot in a school.



> No one has ever said a Wing Chun guy can't get to close range.  In fact I showed multiple videos to illustrate the point that most Wing Chun guys just step right into close range and  start going at it, with no long-range game or even a real strategy.



And you said they never do well against other styles unless they abandon WC. 
So, how do you know it works, close-range, against other styles, if you've never seen anyone do it?


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> If what you are practicing does not apply directly to a real encounter, then that isn't a very efficient way to train.  Boxers don't train that way.
> 
> You should "fight the way you train and train the way you fight."



What about when boxers hit the speed bag? Heavy bag? Timing/double end bag? Skip rope? Jog/road work?
I.E. They repeatedly 'chain punch' a speed bag with elbows high and flared out a bit...yet that doesn't show up when they box.


If memory serves....you are / were military...so let me provide another example:

When you learn to shoot, a soldier spends copious amounts of time on attribute drills that lend very very well to situations they may face under duress...when they "fight"


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

*The guy's talking about technique-based martial arts training.*

---You don't use techniques in WSLVT?   See, I don't believe that your abstract "non-application" based training is as different as you think it is.


*Fighting behaviors developed or corrected by the VT method are "sport-specific" and do apply directly to fighting.*

----You always cop out with this ill-defined term "fighting behaviors."  Either you are developing the ability to use techniques in a real exchange or you aren't.   If the techniques you are using in developmental drills are not the same techniques you are going to be using in a real exchange, then you are at least one step removed from reality and not  as "sport-specific" as you could be.  That is less efficient.


*They just aren't 1:1 techniques, but fighting habits that enable an instinctive uninterrupted onslaught.*

---An "instinctive uninterrupted onslaught" of  what?  


*You simply fail to comprehend how this works because you have never experienced such an approach to fighting.*

---I never said it couldn't work.  I've been saying it is not as efficient and direct as you would have us believe.


*There are a ton of charlatans in the WC world who pass off bits as the whole. Dropping them crumbs is doing no one a favor, especially not the VT system.*

---And that's the attitude I'm talking about!  That attitude isn't doing anyone any favors.  


*And it does that, but you are confused about exactly how and what that looks like.*

----Really?   Shouldn't it "look like" someone beating the crap out of a non-Wing Chun opponent?  I don't think that is very confusing!  I just haven't seen it yet!   Are you guys afraid to post video of WSLVT people sparring non-Wing Chun people???


*You are not justified in judging the efficiency or efficacy of the training method if you neither understand the method, nor have seen the end product.*

----Well, that's the problem isn't it?  You make all kinds of claims that you want everyone to just accept without ever showing any evidence that a successful "end product" even exists.   I don't have to understand all the details of the training method.  I just have to see the results.  And the results should be pretty easy to understand.....WSLVT guys consistently dominating non-Wing Chun guys in sparring bouts.  Nothing confusing about that!   Are you guys afraid to post video of WSLVT people sparring non-Wing Chun people?


*You are not being agnostic as you should, but concluding negatively from an uninformed yet clearly biased opinion.*

----No, you are wrong.  I happen to admire WSL and WSLVT and think it is a great system.  You just always manage to give it a bad rap in the way you are so smug and self-assured in the way you argue and discuss it here.  You make everything else out to be substandard and wrong rather than just freely sharing what you know from WSLVT.  I don't have a negative opinion of WSLVT.  I have a negative opinion of the way you talk about it.



*Doors are open around the world. I don't know what you're afraid of.  You've been on a years-long mission to debunk WSLVT, but don't dare step foot in a school*.

----There are no schools near me that would pass your "acceptability" standard.  After all, we all know that not just any WSL student will do!  It has to be someone that got the "secret sauce"!!!  

*
And you said they never do well against other styles unless they abandon WC. *

---I said "many" or "often", not "never."


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

*What about when boxers hit the speed bag? Heavy bag? Timing/double end bag? Skip rope? Jog/road work?*

---That is conditioning, not "sport-specific" training.  Watch the Matt Thornton video that Steve posted.


*When you learn to shoot, a soldier spends copious amounts of time on attribute drills that lend very very well to situations they may face under duress...when they "fight"*

---Absolutely!  And when we go to the range they don't have us shooting from a nice bench rest in perfect conditions!  They have us down in the trenches shooting from kneeling, prone, and other "real-world" positions.  The targets are not nice stationary targets that are within easy distance to hit.  They are "pop up" targets that appear at various distances that mimic a battlefield as closely as possible.   It would make no sense to practice shooting under absolutely perfect conditions and expect that to translate well over to battlefield conditions.   So why would you expect drilling in perfect conditions against a partner doing Wing Chun technique to translate over well to fighting a resistant partner not doing Wing Chun technique??  All ring fighters work against the type of opponent they expect to face in the ring.  They will even bring in people from outside that can simulate their scheduled opponent's fighting style.  So why do so many Wing Chun guys only train and drill against another guy doing Wing Chun and think this applies so directly to a real exchange?  A non-Wing Chun opponent is simply not going to react like a Wing Chun student, he isn't going to  be throwing nice straight punches or keep his hands nicely on the centerline.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> I don't believe that your abstract "non-application" based training is as different as you think it is.



Based on what information? You have no knowledge of the training.



> this ill-defined term "fighting behaviors."



Principles of movement, strategy and tactics for engaging with an opponent.



> Either you are developing the ability to use techniques in a real exchange or you aren't.   If the techniques you are using in developmental drills are not the same techniques you are going to be using in a real exchange, then you are at least one step removed from reality and not  as "sport-specific" as you could be.  That is less efficient.



True of technique-based approaches to fighting with 1:1 applications, 2-3 hit combos, etc..



> ---An "instinctive uninterrupted onslaught" of  what?



Offense.



> ---I never said it couldn't work.  I've been saying it is not as efficient and direct as you would have us believe.



Based on 0 knowledge of the method whatsoever.



> *There are a ton of charlatans in the WC world who pass off bits as the whole. Dropping them crumbs is doing no one a favor, especially not the VT system.*
> 
> ---And that's the attitude I'm talking about!  That attitude isn't doing anyone any favors.



Cry about it?



> Shouldn't it "look like" someone beating the crap out of a non-Wing Chun opponent?  I don't think that is very confusing!  I just haven't seen it yet!



You keep asking to see _bong_-_laap_ cycles in fighting. So, yes, you are very confused.



> *You are not justified in judging the efficiency or efficacy of the training method if you neither understand the method, nor have seen the end product.*
> 
> ----Well, that's the problem isn't it?



Yes, it is. Which is why you should either go check it out, or just stop.



> I don't have to understand all the details of the training method.  I just have to see the results.



And until you do, the correct position is agnostic, not to make uninformed assertions of inefficiency and inefficacy.



> I don't have a negative opinion of WSLVT.  I have a negative opinion of the way you talk about it.



You've just spent this whole thread telling me WSLVT training methods are inefficient and unlikely to help in fighting.



> ----There are no schools near me that would pass your "acceptability" standard.



You have traveled to Hong Kong at least once. So, it is within your means to travel if really interested.

If you're not interested or can't be bothered to make a trip, then you have nothing to say on the topic of WSLVT.



> *And you said they never do well against other styles unless they abandon WC.*
> 
> ---I said "many" or "often", not "never."



So, where is the "some times" then?


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> ---Absolutely!  And when we go to the range they don't have us shooting from a nice bench rest in perfect conditions!  They have us down in the trenches shooting from kneeling, prone, and other "real-world" positions.  The targets are not nice stationary targets that are within easy distance to hit.  They are "pop up" targets that appear at various distances that mimic a battlefield as closely as possible.



Comparable to pre-sparring drills and free sparring stages of training.



> It would make no sense to practice shooting under absolutely perfect conditions and expect that to translate well over to battlefield conditions.   So why would you expect drilling in perfect conditions against a partner doing Wing Chun technique to translate over well to fighting a resistant partner not doing Wing Chun technique??



These are different stages. It has been explained to you, but you apparently won't get it without hands-on training.



> All ring fighters work against the type of opponent they expect to face in the ring.  They will even bring in people from outside that can simulate their scheduled opponent's fighting style.  So why do so many Wing Chun guys only train and drill against another guy doing Wing Chun and think this applies so directly to a real exchange?



Can't speak for "so many WC guys", but I train against all manner of fighter that I can.

Sean has even posted videos showing sparring with MMA guys invited into his school for his guys to train against, and you praised it for still "looking like VT". 

But, for some reason you always "forget" this when you get back on your anti-WSLVT horse.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 25, 2017)

Concept in and of itself is useless without a technique to exploit it. All technique contains concept, whether identified by the user or not, as part of an overarching strategy or tactic. It's a symbiotic relationship. To parse it out & suggest that the parts (concept or technique) can be functional independent of one another is to completely misunderstand the relationship and role of each. The two are inseperable, they are yin and yang.


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> Concept in and of itself is useless without a technique to exploit it. All technique contains concept, whether identified by the user or not, as part of an overarching strategy or tactic. It's a symbiotic relationship. To parse it out & suggest that the parts (concept or technique) can be functional independent of one another is to completely misunderstand the relationship and role of each. The two are inseperable, they are yin and yang.



Absolutely!  You don't stop a strike or hit someone in the face with a principle or concept.  Yet LFJ keeps squirming around that point and just accuses ME of not understanding!     Somehow his abstract training method teaches one to fight without teaching any specific fighting techniques that can be applied.  Just how does that work?


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

I have listed out several times; punch, palm, kick, _faak_, _wu_, _paak_, _jat_, _bong_...

These are simple tools we use in fighting, either to strike or open the way to strike. 

But, the method is not technique-based, meaning with 1:1 applications (when he does this, I'll do that), or combos (I'll hit him with a _faak_, palm, and punch to set up my kick), and it's not a friendly sparring or point-fighting mentality with an exchange of these techniques in a ring strategy.

This technique-based approach is fine, so long as your techniques are realistic. Most MAs are of this type.

But, instead of this, VT develops, as stated, a certain behavior for fighting with a few simple tools; principles of movement for engaging with an opponent.

It's a fundamentally different approach. Therefore, it also requires a different training method to develop necessary attributes and habits, and correct errors in order to perform effectively in this way.

Doing isolated 1:1 applications or preset combos is actually detrimental to the habits we are trying to form. That's why we drill things in a controlled yet spontaneous environment where we can pause and highlight errors without getting caught in a technique-based mindset.

Then of course, when ready, we incrementally return to pre-sparring and free sparring/fighting stages for further pressure testing against whatever kind of attacker. Here we discover if our errors have been corrected, and discover further errors that need correcting. We then return to the training process to deal with this again. In this way we improve in the most efficient and effective manner _for VT fighting_.

There is nothing wonderfully magical about it, but if one has no knowledge of this type of fighting or training method, without firsthand experience nothing but inaccurate conclusions are likely to be drawn, as has been happening throughout this thread.


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Based on what information? You have no knowledge of the training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What an entirely pointless and argumentative response.  Didn't really address anything I said.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> Didn't really address anything I said.



Addressed everything. What else are you looking for that I missed?


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I have listed out several times; punch, palm, kick, _faak_, _wu_, _paak_, _jat_, _bong_...
> 
> These are simple tools we use in fighting, either to strike or open the way to strike.
> 
> ...



Now THAT is a good post!   To the point, not argumentative, and not insulting.   All you need now is video that shows the results of that training and its effectiveness in dealing with a non-Wing Chun opponent.  Otherwise, what you are saying is just as theoretical as what anyone else here could claim about what their own lineage is capable of.  Nothing wrong that!  But don't carry on as if it isn't true.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> Otherwise, what you are saying is just as theoretical as what anyone else here could claim about what their own lineage is capable of.



It's not theoretical if people are putting it to practice, whether you have seen it or not.


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

LFJ said:


> It's not theoretical if people are putting it to practice, whether you have seen it or not.



Until you can prove it on the forums, then all of your forum claims are indeed theoretical.  Therefore stop "preaching the gospel of Wong" and just post like a normal person.  And I'll ask again.....are you guys afraid to post video of WSLVT people sparring non-Wing Chun people?


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> Until you can prove it on the forums, then all of your forum claims are indeed theoretical.  Therefore stop "preaching the gospel of Wong" and just post like a normal person.



I posted here to correct some misconceptions about WSLVT training methods, not to preach anything.



> And I'll ask again.....are you guys afraid to post video of WSLVT people sparring non-Wing Chun people?



Asked and answered.


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Asked and answered.



Oh!  Ok!  Then it appears that, in some many words, the answer seems to be "yes."


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

Here is a perfect example of "sport specific" training that is directly applicable to a real situation.  The "concept" or "principle" is to distract the opponent to set up the intended blow.  If you can actually damage his eyes in the process, so much the better!  But the concept is tied to an actual technique, and the technique is trained just as you would expect to use it in a real situation.  Nothing "abstract" about this.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

And you say I'm argumentative when you pull dishonest crap like this?



			
				KPM said:
			
		

> So why do so many Wing Chun guys only train and drill against another guy doing Wing Chun and think this applies so directly to a real exchange?





LFJ said:


> Sean has even posted videos showing sparring with MMA guys invited into his school for his guys to train against, and you praised it for still "looking like VT".
> 
> But, for some reason you always "forget" this when you get back on your anti-WSLVT horse.





KPM said:


> I'll ask again.....are you guys afraid to post video of WSLVT people sparring non-Wing Chun people?





LFJ said:


> Asked and answered.





KPM said:


> Oh!  Ok!  Then it appears that, in some many words, the answer seems to be "yes."



Your anti-WSLVT bias is showing, troll.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here is a perfect example of "sport specific" training that is directly applicable to a real situation.  The "concept" or "principle" is to distract the opponent to set up the intended blow.  If you can actually damage his eyes in the process, so much the better!  But the concept is tied to an actual technique, and the technique is trained just as you would expect to use it in a real situation.  Nothing "abstract" about this.



Because it is not VT. There is also no confusion about how technique-based styles train and work.


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

LFJ said:


> And you say I'm argumentative when you pull dishonest crap like this?
> 
> 
> Your anti-WSLVT bias is showing, troll.



Well, then!  Let's see that video again.   If I remember correctly it wasn't actually a free-sparring video against non-Wing Chun guys.  But I'm happy to be proven wrong!   Seeing at least ONE video like that out of the myriad of PB Chi Sau videos posted would be a great start!  But one video out of dozens and dozens doesn't really disprove the idea that WSLVT guys are afraid to post sparring videos.  And when I said the answer was apparently "yes" I was referring to your idea that WSLVT people don't post videos or "tutorials" because they are afraid someone is going to "steal" something from them.  You know....the "we don't cast pearls before swine" line of reasoning.   That is essentially...."yes, we are afraid to post that because we don't want you to know."   Which is not too convincing.  Still seems more like "yes, we are afraid to post sparring videos because we don't actually do any better than the rest of you Wing Chun guys."


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Because it is not VT. There is also no confusion about how technique-based styles train and work.



It is Wing Chun Boxing. But it doesn't have to be Wing Chun to be an example of "sport-specific training" that can be emulated by Wing Chun people.  That was the point.


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

Double post


----------



## Phobius (Jun 25, 2017)

Just beware of boxing. There are many styles of it, and most people that mimic boxers do not think of the glove impact.

The gloves allow you to deliver more power in your punches without fear of injury. This puts a higher requirement on power generation even at expense of accurracy (Not saying you do not master art of hitting, just that when you hit there is not much difference between soft tissue or bone with those gloves on)

The gloves weigh enough to unbalance your muscles. Becoming efficient with boxing gloves may cause you to get a bad habit of lifting the weight that is usually on your hands when fighting without gloves.

The defense system of boxers mostly does not work in a self defense scenario, not that it matters when you are one of the best punchers there are. Most boxers are probably somewhat aware of this but they do not train self defense anyways. The guard has a different movement and distance because you expect to cover and receive punches on your guard. Without gloves you would be suprised if a punch landed straight on your guard (it actually happens quite often still but you know what I mean at least).


----------



## dudewingchun (Jun 25, 2017)

Phobius said:


> Just beware of boxing. There are many styles of it, and most people that mimic boxers do not think of the glove impact.
> 
> The gloves allow you to deliver more power in your punches without fear of injury. This puts a higher requirement on power generation even at expense of accurracy (Not saying you do not master art of hitting, just that when you hit there is not much difference between soft tissue or bone with those gloves on)
> 
> ...



Silly reasons to not box. Most street fight videos where someone has a decent idea of boxing they usually win.


----------



## KPM (Jun 25, 2017)

*Just beware of boxing. There are many styles of it, and most people that mimic boxers do not think of the glove impact.*

----I've done a lot of training both with and without gloves.  I'm well aware of the differences.  

*The gloves allow you to deliver more power in your punches without fear of injury. This puts a higher requirement on power generation even at expense of accurracy (Not saying you do not master art of hitting, just that when you hit there is not much difference between soft tissue or bone with those gloves on)*

----Yeah, if you only trained with gloves on you don't have to worry as much about the angle of impact and how it is going to affect your hand and wrist.  But training back and forth between having the gloves and being empty-hands takes care of that.  Its one of the differences between "Wing Chun Boxing" and just straight sport boxing.  Sport boxing does little training without the gloves and hand wraps on.


*The gloves weigh enough to unbalance your muscles. Becoming efficient with boxing gloves may cause you to get a bad habit of lifting the weight that is usually on your hands when fighting without gloves.*

----That one makes no sense.   If anything, training with the weight of the gloves, and then taking the gloves off just makes your punching faster and more responsive.


*The defense system of boxers mostly does not work in a self defense scenario, not that it matters when you are one of the best punchers there are. Most boxers are probably somewhat aware of this but they do not train self defense anyways. *

----And that's a good example of what Wing Chun can bring to Boxing!   Check out my thread on "Wing Chun Boxing."


----------



## KPM (Jun 26, 2017)

KPM said:


> Well, then!  Let's see that video again.   If I remember correctly it wasn't actually a free-sparring video against non-Wing Chun guys.  But I'm happy to be proven wrong!   Seeing at least ONE video like that out of the myriad of PB Chi Sau videos posted would be a great start!  But one video out of dozens and dozens doesn't really disprove the idea that WSLVT guys are afraid to post sparring videos.  And when I said the answer was apparently "yes" I was referring to your idea that WSLVT people don't post videos or "tutorials" because they are afraid someone is going to "steal" something from them.  You know....the "we don't cast pearls before swine" line of reasoning.   That is essentially...."yes, we are afraid to post that because we don't want you to know."   Which is not too convincing.  Still seems more like "yes, we are afraid to post sparring videos because we don't actually do any better than the rest of you Wing Chun guys."




---Had trouble finding it on the forum.  So I went to Sean's youtube page.  I don't remember whether this is the same clip or not, but it is the only one that shows any real sparring against a non-Wing Chun guy.   And it is a good clip!  But notice how often the exchange ended with a sweep or takedown.  Notice how often Sean's guys use a boxing high cover. I'd say Sean breaks from "typical" WSLVT to some extent.  Which is good!   Everyone should check out the rest of Sean's clips on his youtube page.  Good stuff!  






---But again, this is one sparring clip out of dozens and dozens of WSLVT (and particularly PB) clips on the web.  One clip does not counter the strong impression that WSLVT guys have an adversion to posting sparring clips.  

*Whatever helps you sleep.*

---Another "cop out" pointless comment.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 26, 2017)

KPM said:


> But notice how often the exchange ended with a sweep or takedown.  Notice how often Sean's guys use a boxing high cover. I'd say Sean breaks from "typical" WSLVT to some extent.



They do incorporate grappling, because I believe he intends to have them compete in the future.
There is no Western Boxing, though.



> ---But again, this is one sparring clip out of dozens and dozens of WSLVT (and particularly PB) clips on the web.  One clip does not counter the strong impression that WSLVT guys have an adversion to posting sparring clips.



I'm sure you mean _aversion_, but it's not an impression. 
You were told flat out that most groups do not make much public and why.
You can dislike the policy or the reason for it, but you can't disagree with it, because it's not your VT.



> *Whatever helps you sleep.*
> 
> ---Another "cop out" pointless comment.



There's nothing to cop out of...

You were told the reason for the policy. If you choose to believe something else to make yourself feel better about your WC, then... whatever helps you sleep.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 26, 2017)

I have trained in something that looks close to the WSL clip. Leung Sheung lineage is similar, except the "lop sao" does not actually grab. All you do is clear the line. There are also several ways to change sides. And that is about all I have to add here for now.


----------



## geezer (Jun 26, 2017)

Marnetmar said:


> Not to be that guy, but t*he WT version of the lap sau drill is wonky as hell ...What is even the purpose of that version of the drill and how does it do anything *other than create bad habits?



^^^^This is an excellent question. The WT drill as practiced is not for fighting, but to train a specific attribute -- namely _the yielding, "springy" bong sau._ The WT bong does not explode forward as a ballistic deflection like what you see in some lineages. Instead it is conceived of as a bent spring that receives and redirects strong incoming forces.

So, if your man-sau or front punch meets a stronger incoming force, instead of struggling to overcome the incoming force, you allow that force press your arm back into tan-sau or bong-sau, depending on the direction of the force received. Arm pressing forward but compressed backwards = "bent spring".

Basically, I think of the ballistic, deflecting bong as a sort of "yang bong", and the yielding bong, in which you compress and turn with the incoming force, as more of a "yin bong". Both types require forward pressure and accomplish a deflection. They just do it differently. And both are used differently in a fight than in Lat-sau practice.  The WT bong or "yin bong" is used against more committed punches and, in actual application, may be followed directly by a punch without using the rear hand to lap or fook.

See Emin's examples below, first just posed at around 1:30, then showing how it can be used better with flow "like water" and then used poorly, momentarily freezing "like ice" at 2:25-2:50.






Personal note: I have found both types of bong effective, with _the ballistic "yang" bong_ working well at longer range and against less committed punches where this bong's impact can not only deflect, but jolt your opponent and disrupt his center. For me, _the yielding bong _works better either against more committed punches or at closer range where you can use it to roll with the punches and turn your opponent off center. I use the term "yielding", but flowing might be a better description, since it still uses good forward pressure and, although I may yield and turn with it, it will equally turn my opponent aside. This would be a bit more like what you see in parts of the Alan Orr clip.


----------



## KPM (Jul 8, 2017)

Here is my "new" approach to the Lop Sau Drill:


----------



## LFJ (Jul 10, 2017)

...my "new" approach to the Lop Sau Drill.

Should say:

...my new approach to "the Lop Sau Drill".


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jul 10, 2017)

I'm late to the party, and am choosing to skim past much of the contention back and forth, but my take is:
I've done a _bong fook da_ drill essentially identical to the Alex Richter video posted. It was taught very early on, even prior to any _poon sau_, and it is definitely not teaching a 1:1 application so much as training general responses. Mainly to naturally form the bong shape in response to when particular pressure is applied (a center punch with low elbow force). Then there are several specific ways to initiate a switch from one side to the other, it becomes more dynamic, then several attacks that can be incorporated, then stepping. The drill goes from the simplee single repetition of movement to a very unscripted and dynamic training platform, however it is generally always one person "leading" another, feeding them strikes that the student dissolves, while never losing stick.

I have seen versions by many that look just like the WSL video from Geezer's OP, but to be honest I never really understood it. A backfist just seems like an odd movement to train a response off of, and since you are _*pushed*_ fairly forcefully into bong, it doesn't seem like it would train that response at all the same way I'm accustomed to. Given that they way I was taught is not a 1:1 application at all, and that there is much more than meets the eye....... I just have to assume there is purpose there that I don't get on other's versions.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 11, 2017)

PiedmontChun said:


> I have seen versions by many that look just like the WSL video from Geezer's OP, but to be honest I never really understood it. A backfist just seems like an odd movement to train a response off of, and since you are _*pushed*_ fairly forcefully into bong, it doesn't seem like it would train that response at all the same way I'm accustomed to.



You must be talking about those other versions, because WSL doesn't backfist or push on the arms.



> not a 1:1 application at all, and that there is much more than meets the eye.......



Same.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 11, 2017)

LFJ said:


> You must be talking about those other versions, because WSL doesn't backfist or push on the arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Same.




Back fist? UGH !


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 11, 2017)

Back fisting? UGH ugh ugh


----------



## KPM (Jul 11, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> Back fisting? UGH ugh ugh


 
Your friend Alan Lamb was fond of doing the Gwai Choi or "backfist" from the Bong-Lop.  I believe he said he learned it from Koo Sang.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 11, 2017)

KPM said:


> Your friend Alan Lamb was fond of doing the Gwai Choi or "backfist" from the Bong-Lop.  I believe he said he learned it from Koo Sang.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your point? Alan is indeed a very good friend. Friends can have  their own views and still be friends. Common sense!


----------



## KPM (Jul 12, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What is your point? Alan is indeed a very good friend. Friends can have  their own views and still be friends. Common sense!



My point?  People can have their own views and still be friends.  Common sense!  Yet you posted somewhat negatively on a thread where I have shown the same thing that your friend Alan Lamb does!   You do that quite often....make negative one-liner drive-by posts on my threads!  So, I can't have my "own view"?


----------



## LFJ (Jul 12, 2017)

KPM said:


> ...on my threads!  So, I can't have my "own view"?



You just don't like others having their own view on "your threads" if they are not agreeing with you.

You need to realize this is not KPMartialtalk.com. Not to mention, Geezer started this thread.


----------



## KPM (Jul 12, 2017)

LFJ said:


> You just don't like others having their own view on "your threads" if they are not agreeing with you.
> 
> You need to realize this is not KPMartialtalk.com. Not to mention, Geezer started this thread.



Oh, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me and giving feedback, as Phobius and Drop Bear did on this thread.  What I object to is people simply arguing for argument's sake and being hypercritical without ever considering the responses provided and just continuing to argue.  This is what you do regularly.  In fact, it seems to be your sole reason for being here.  And Joy....he never provides any justification for his dissent.  He just disagrees with a negative one-liner.  That's not very "friendly", constructive, or useful either.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 12, 2017)

KPM said:


> This is what you do regularly.  In fact, it seems to be your sole reason for being here.



Actually, I offered quite a bit of information and insight into the system I train on this thread.


----------



## KPM (Jul 12, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Actually, I offered quite a bit of information and insight into the system I train on this thread.



Yeah, after arguing, deflecting, insulting...eventually you get around to actually sharing something constructive.  But the "noise to signal" ratio is pretty excessive!


----------



## LFJ (Jul 12, 2017)

KPM said:


> Yeah, after arguing, deflecting, insulting...eventually you get around to actually sharing something constructive.  But the "noise to signal" ratio is pretty excessive!



If you didn't want to arrogantly fight me on what's in my system while having no knowledge or experience to draw from, then this would be nothing but constructive.


----------



## karatejj (Jul 13, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Actually, I offered quite a bit of information and insight into the system I train on this thread.



Hey dude you did offer some good info on you're system. But can you explain why so different to standard wing chun like WC and boxing sifu KPM?

Thx


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 15, 2017)

karatejj said:


> Hey dude you did offer some good info on you're system. But can you explain why so different to standard wing chun like WC and boxing sifu KPM?
> 
> Thx


---------------------------------------------------------------------
KPM wanders all over the place.I dont want to write a book with each wandering. I dont care to debate with KPM. Hence this post is an FYI on backfisting for list members. In the heat of battle unorthodox movements
can legitimately arise perhaps something that may look like a backfist. But training the backfist is not the best idea.
A backfist is generally more of an arm movement rather than fists that emerge  from the core "mother line". The best fists can use a small hole in the opponents structure for their path.
In passing,Ip  Man did not backfist neither did those students who completed their wiing chun with Ip Man.


----------



## karatejj (Jul 16, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> KPM wanders all over the place.I dont want to write a book with each wandering. I dont care to debate with KPM. Hence this post is an FYI on backfisting for list members. In the heat of battle unorthodox movements
> can legitimately arise perhaps something that may look like a backfist. But training the backfist is not the best idea.
> A backfist is generally more of an arm movement rather than fists that emerge  from the core "mother line". The best fists can use a small hole in the opponents structure for their path.
> In passing,Ip  Man did not backfist neither did those students who completed their wiing chun with Ip Man.



Thanks for great info!


----------



## KPM (Jul 16, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> KPM wanders all over the place.I dont want to write a book with each wandering. I dont care to debate with KPM. Hence this post is an FYI on backfisting for list members. In the heat of battle unorthodox movements
> can legitimately arise perhaps something that may look like a backfist. But training the backfist is not the best idea.
> A backfist is generally more of an arm movement rather than fists that emerge  from the core "mother line". The best fists can use a small hole in the opponents structure for their path.
> In passing,Ip  Man did not backfist neither did those students who completed their wiing chun with Ip Man.



Ah!  More than a negative one liner!  As I pointed out before, Alan Lamb taught a backfist as a routine part of the Lop Da drill and I believe ha said he learned it from Koo Sang.  The Gwai choi punch is found in many mainland styles including Pin Sun and Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun.  There is a time and place for different punches.  It is not "unorthodox" unless you have a somewhat narrow and dogmatic view of wing chun.  Like LFJ you seem to think that all wing chun should be Ip Man wing chun!


----------



## LFJ (Jul 16, 2017)

KPM said:


> Like LFJ you seem to think that all wing chun should be Ip Man wing chun!



I don't think that.

I think YMVT was not multiple contradictory understandings of the same material taught by the same man, though.


----------



## karatejj (Jul 16, 2017)

KPM said:


> Ah!  More than a negative one liner!  As I pointed out before, Alan Lamb taught a backfist as a routine part of the Lop Da drill and I believe ha said he learned it from Koo Sang.  The Gwai choi punch is found in many mainland styles including Pin Sun and Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun.  There is a time and place for different punches.  It is not "unorthodox" unless you have a somewhat narrow and dogmatic view of wing chun.  Like LFJ you seem to think that all wing chun should be Ip Man wing chun!



All info is good info man. We weave are own life from stuff what other folks leave behind!


----------



## karatejj (Jul 19, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here is my "new" approach to the Lop Sau Drill:



Hey man, any more lesson planned?


----------



## Bino TWT (Aug 5, 2017)

*Jut Chuen* - "_Sinking/Shocking & Threading_": Sometimes called Laap Kuen or Laap Da (pull/fist or pull/strike), this is similar to the Laap Sao/Laap Da drill done by other Wing Chun lineages, but mechanically different in function. This is a training platform used to practice free flow of techniques and counters, to learn to control the range and apply forward intent to your movements, bridging the gap between Lat Sao and Chi Sao. Jut Chuen is the primary training platform used by the Hong Kong/IWTA side of the WT lineage, as opposed to the Lat Sao program used by the EWTO.


----------

