# Terminology distinction?



## wckf92 (Oct 2, 2016)

How do you define or differentiate between the terms "deflection" and "redirection"?
Thx!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 2, 2016)

A clarification: these are terms I just read in one of the JAMA articles (about WT punches) by a WT person named Master Webb. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 2, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> How do you define or differentiate between the terms "deflection" and "redirection"?
> Thx!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


-----------------------------------------------To me- there is a difference. A deflection could be not as accurate and controlled as redirection. But meaning can vary with user


----------



## Danny T (Oct 2, 2016)

For me...deflection is causing a change of direction whereas a redirection is to change the path of something for the use of it differently.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 2, 2016)

There is another term for "redirection" and that's "guide/tuck". You temporary "guide/tuck" your opponent's arm away from your next moving path. You may also try to take advantage on his reaction.

deflect - as long as your opponent's arm is away from your moving path, you don't care much about his arm position (conservative approach).
redirection (or guide/tuck) - you want your opponent's arm to be at the precise location (aggressive approach).


----------



## LFJ (Oct 3, 2016)

I don't use either term. Both sound like arm-chasing tactics.

Deflection = parry the arm. 
Redirection = guide the arm.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> How do you define or differentiate between the terms "deflection" and "redirection"?
> Thx!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


My understanding of the terms is that "deflection" is a block of sorts, letting the energy of the strike/attack disperse in whatever new direction you sent it, whereas "redirection" means you alter the direction of the strike/attack specifically to give you access to something new (perhaps a throw). That means with the deflection I don't care what new direction I give the attack, so long as it doesn't hit me, while with the redirection I pick a new direction with purpose beyond simply avoiding the strike.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 3, 2016)

To me...

Deflection = preventing an attack from landing but without making any use of the energy
EXAMPLE: You use a pak sao to knock a punch to the head off course.


Redirection = you block the attack, but then use the energy to add power to your counter attack
EXAMPLE: If someone shoves you by pushing on your right shoulder, you pivot with their shove while punching. Thus you redirect the energy from their shove into your punch, making it hit harder.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Oct 3, 2016)

When I hear "redirect" I generally think of arts like Judo or Akido that actively use an opponent's energy against them by redirecting it and flowing it into a counter attack. I also think "redirecting" in this sense requires a fairly committed attack. In the context of WC, to "deflect" is more common and it has a much more passive connotation (in the WT I have seen first hand / been taught anyway) than "redirecting".

Basic example:
- An straight punch to the solar plexus is deflected just enough off its intended target by a punch slightly to the outside with good low elbow force.
- An inside punch slightly higher, like to the face or from a taller opponent, can be wedged out from the inside by punching a straight path to the opponent's face.
In both cases, hitting the opponent is the primary objective, not parrying the attack, but the opponents attack is deflected by the use of punching technique and angle.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 3, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I don't use either term. Both sound like arm-chasing tactics.


What term do you use to describe an attack being prevented through the placement of another attack. For me the deflection happens as a by-product of good positioning while attacking. Not due to chasing the limbs. Redirection happens as well and because of good positioning of the body and elbows control of the limb happens. It isn't chasing it is just what happens and those are the terms used to describe those happens.


----------



## KPM (Oct 3, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> How do you define or differentiate between the terms "deflection" and "redirection"?
> Thx!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk



Same thing as far as I'm concerned.  Everything else is just semantics.  If you deflect something it has been redirected.  And a deflection is not necessarily "hand chasing."  I could be punching someone so that I am deflecting their punch while I am hitting them....ie...a "cutting" punch or "excluding" punch.  That certainly isn't "hand chasing."  And in the process I have "redirected" their punch off of the centerline and the line to its intended target.


----------



## geezer (Oct 3, 2016)

Honestly, the words deflection and redirection can be used correctly and still mean different things to different people. If you want to know more about what the author of that article meant, he's easy enough to contact. Check out his website.


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

Danny T said:


> What term do you use to describe an attack being prevented through the placement of another attack.



I think the point is to think of attack, and not to think of deflecting and redirecting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> I think the point is to think of attack, and not to think of deflecting and redirecting.


Those are techniques used in attacking/defending. That's like saying, "The point is to think of attack,and not to think about blocking and moving."


----------



## KPM (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> I think the point is to think of attack, and not to think of deflecting and redirecting.



Good way to end up with what is known in HEMA as a "double kill."


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> I think the point is to think of attack, and not to think of deflecting and redirecting.



ok


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> Good way to end up with what is known in HEMA as a "double kill."


In Japanese, _ai uchi_ ("mutual kill").


----------



## Danny T (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> I think the point is to think of attack, and not to think of deflecting and redirecting.


Ok...as I stated; "...through the placement of another attack."
But that doesn't answer the question.


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

[QUOTE="Danny T] as I stated; "...through the placement of another attack."
But that doesn't answer the question.[/QUOTE]

It does answer the question. It's called attacking centre, or VT. There isn't any need to call it something special because it is a consequence of attacking with VT, not a goal in itself.


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Those are techniques used in attacking/defending. That's like saying, "The point is to think of attack,and not to think about blocking and moving."



If you attack with VT you don't need to think of blocking and moving, redirecting and deflecting. You just attack


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> Good way to end up with what is known in HEMA as a "double kill."



VT is not a tit for tat system. It works by attacking, not by defending


----------



## Phobius (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> If you attack with VT you don't need to think of blocking and moving, redirecting and deflecting. You just attack



I agree. If you attack then your opponents attacks just vanish. They are neither redirected nor deflected... they just evaporate in the presence of VT.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> If you attack with VT you don't need to think of blocking and moving, redirecting and deflecting. You just attack


If that were true, you'd only study "attack". Those other terms are how you understand the result of the attack. If you don't pay attention to that, you're acting randomly, and I doubt you do that.


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I agree. If you attack then your opponents attacks just vanish. They are neither redirected nor deflected... they just evaporate in the presence of VT.



Not needing to think about the attacks of your opponent doesn't amount to them not existing, but in VT defence is inside attack, so you just attack. Thinking about defending is not VT.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> VT is not a tit for tat system. It works by attacking, not by defending


All styles include defense. Just because the primary aim is attack doesn't mean there's no defense. If you don't defend, then you ignore the incoming punch and let it hit where it may.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> Not needing to think about the attacks of your opponent doesn't amount to them not existing, but in VT defence is inside attack, so you just attack. Thinking about defending is not VT.


That's overreaching a principle. You have to understand the defense built into your attack.


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> If that were true, you'd only study "attack". Those other terms are how you understand the result of the attack. If you don't pay attention to that, you're acting randomly, and I doubt you do that.



VT is attack, defence is built into attack and doesn't need conscious attention. This is why VT works


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's overreaching a principle. You have to understand the defense built into your attack.



Needs no conscious attention


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> All styles include defense. Just because the primary aim is attack doesn't mean there's no defense. If you don't defend, then you ignore the incoming punch and let it hit where it may.



Complete misunderstanding of VT


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> VT is attack, defence is built into attack and doesn't need conscious attention. This is why VT works


I understand that point, but that doesn't mean you should never look at it when learning the art. Understanding the defense built into the attack is key to understanding why you move the way you do. Without the why, there is no understanding.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> Complete misunderstanding of VT


Complete oversimplification of your point. Show me where there's no defense built into VT. It's part of the movement. Just because it's not a separate thing doesn't mean it's not a principle of the movement. It's why you move the way you do.


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I understand that point, but that doesn't mean you should never look at it when learning the art. Understanding the defense built into the attack is key to understanding why you move the way you do. Without the why, there is no understanding.



To be honest you can learn VT and understand not very much of how it works. The method is mostly about entraining particular behaviors. To teacj it you need to understand it, but to do you just do.


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Show me where there's no defense built into VT. It's part of the movement. Just because it's not a separate thing doesn't mean it's not a principle of the movement. It's why you move the way you do.



you are taking nonsense now


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 4, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I don't use either term. Both sound like arm-chasing tactics.
> 
> Deflection = parry the arm.
> Redirection = guide the arm.


I can do this while just standing there, ya know. The punches just seem to come to me, in these parts.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> If you attack with VT you don't need to think of blocking and moving, redirecting and deflecting. You just attack


Of, of course....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> VT is attack, defence is built into attack and doesn't need conscious attention. This is why VT works


So if your opponent chain punches at you, you just chain punches him back.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> you are taking nonsense now


No, I've asked you to clarify your last statement, which sounded like nonsense to me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> To be honest you can learn VT and understand not very much of how it works. The method is mostly about entraining particular behaviors. To teacj it you need to understand it, but to do you just do.


That can be said of any art. However, to really learn to use it, rather than simply repeating the movements, the "why" is necessary. IMO, it's more important to understand the "why" eventually, than to remember the movements.


----------



## Phobius (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> To be honest you can learn VT and understand not very much of how it works. The method is mostly about entraining particular behaviors. To teacj it you need to understand it, but to do you just do.



The question was not whether or not you understand how it works. It was a question about deflection and redirection. So given your comment in quote this means that you do not know anything as to why you do what you do. Given that you are unable to understand how there is a defense built into your movement?

IS this something you are taught by your sifu? That you do not need to understand what you are doing, only do as they say?


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

Phobius said:


> So given your comment in quote this means that you do not know anything as to why you do what you do.



You appear not to be thinking logically. Or maybe it is that English not first language thing again. I can't argue against something I didn't say.


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Show me where there's no defense built into VT



I didn't say that. That was why I said you were talking nonsense.


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> to really learn to use it, rather than simply repeating the movements, the "why" is necessary. IMO



The training method of VT trains VT. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or even to think about it much in order to learn it. It is pretty simple in terms of mental effort. Hard in terms of physical effort


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> You appear not to be thinking logically. Or maybe it is that English not first language thing again. I can't argue against something I didn't say.


Actually, Phobius is making perfect sense. You're being obstinate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> I didn't say that. That was why I said you were talking nonsense.


I talked about the defense being built in, and you said I was talking nonsense. What about my comment, then, was nonsense?


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 4, 2016)

Well.......didn't take this thread long to derail...once guy b got involved hahahahahahahahaha

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I talked about the defense being built in, and you said I was talking nonsense. What about my comment, then, was nonsense?



You said "show me where there is no defence built into VT"

I never made this claim

Therefore your question is nonsensical


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, Phobius is making perfect sense. You're being obstinate.



Phobius said this:



> given your comment in quote this means that you do not know anything as to why you do what you do



Which doesn't follow from what I wrote, which was this: 



> To be honest you can learn VT and understand not very much of how it works. The method is mostly about entraining particular behaviors. To teach it you need to understand it, but to do you just do



That you don't need to understand VT theory in order to learn VT does not mean that I personally don't understand VT theory. It is just a non-sequitur by Phobius, as usual. 

Therefore Phobius' argument is not logical. This trend of disagreeing with logic because you want me to be wrong is not flattering to people here.


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Well.......didn't take this thread long to derail...once guy b got involved hahahahahahahahaha
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk



I don't think it has derailed. People are angry because they are wrong. Not a surprise, perfectly normal.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> ...because they are wrong. Not a surprise, perfectly normal.



...hint, hint...stomp...stomp

Seriously dude...I get it, but gawd...must be nice to exist in a world where the population is 'one'...i.e....you. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> ...hint, hint...stomp...stomp
> 
> Seriously dude...I get it, but gawd...must be nice to exist in a world where the population is 'one'...i.e....you.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk



Popularity on this forum isn't particularly important to me. I just hate to see VT (and logical argument) degraded to such an extent. If people are doing it in the hope of fitting in and making friends on this forum then I would say that is pretty sad.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> Popularity on this forum isn't particularly important to me. I just hate to see VT (and logical argument) degraded to such an extent. If people are doing it in the hope of fitting in and making friends on this forum then I would say that is pretty sad.


...deep breath's dude...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Danny T (Oct 5, 2016)

guy b said:


> [QUOTE="Danny T] as I stated; "...through the placement of another attack."
> But that doesn't answer the question.



It does answer the question. It's called attacking centre, or VT. There isn't any need to call it something special because it is a consequence of attacking with VT, not a goal in itself.[/QUOTE]
Got it...Just VT. 
That really explains "What term do you use to describe an attack being prevented through the placement of another attack."
Would you use the same term, VT, to describe such when you are in a situation where it isn't VT?


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 5, 2016)

Danny T said:


> For me...deflection is causing a change of direction whereas a redirection is to change the path of something for the use of it differently.


^^^^ 
(If I am understanding @Danny T correctly)
Basically (imo), deflection is simply "make it not hurt me" and this may incidentally create an opening etc.  Redirection implies deeper intent, such as setting up a wrist lock, takedown etc.


----------



## guy b (Oct 5, 2016)

Danny T said:


> That really explains "What term do you use to describe an attack being prevented through the placement of another attack."



Lin siu dai da


----------



## Phobius (Oct 5, 2016)

guy b said:


> Phobius said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Logic has no part in your discussion.

You are being asked what term you would use to describe the defense in your attacks.

Given that you provided nothing but comments stating that there is no need to understand the defense in the attacks, this leads to the conclusion that you lack such understanding. This on the term that you are asked how you would describe the defense and saying there is no need to understand such defense is more along the line of saying "I do not know" rather than answering with "I will not say" or "it is best described as ...".

So once more being logical is that you have no understanding since it was such an important point for you to raise despite noone asking you the question whether or not this was information you would need to know if training VT. After all a logical thought process would make you realize quickly that for a forum discussion the term is crucial for understanding what you are referring to. Do not forget, you could be way off and have a complete misunderstanding of VT. How would we know if you can not even explain in terms what you are seeking.

So being logical is not really what you were being and as such keep that term out of this discussion. It does not suit you well.

Those comments I refer to where you for no apparent reason avoid answering a direct and simple question were:



guy b said:


> Danny T said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Illogical statement. Defending while attacking is a goal, it is not an unintentional aspect of the movement. In fact it is the very foundation of your movements.



guy b said:


> If you attack with VT you don't need to think of blocking and moving, redirecting and deflecting. You just attack





guy b said:


> Not needing to think about the attacks of your opponent doesn't amount to them not existing, but in VT defence is inside attack, so you just attack. Thinking about defending is not VT.



Illogical statement yet again. Defense within the attack is what was asked about, so saying such defense does not exist is illogical given that you already said it exists but does not require understanding. See below.



guy b said:


> VT is attack, defence is built into attack and doesn't need conscious attention. This is why VT works



You were asked about term of defense as it is built into attack. You are saying what has already been stated. Simply because you are talking around yourself.



guy b said:


> To be honest you can learn VT and understand not very much of how it works. The method is mostly about entraining particular behaviors. To teacj it you need to understand it, but to do you just do.



And you can not answer question being asked and instead talk in circles. This lead me to a logical conclusion that you might not have the understanding.



guy b said:


> The training method of VT trains VT. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or even to think about it much in order to learn it. It is pretty simple in terms of mental effort. Hard in terms of physical effort



Is this what you are being taught by your sifu, or is this your own experience? Do you not know the way defense within attack works? If you do, how can you know for sure? After all the guy telling you this already knows all about the defense within the movements, and you know it as well? Does that not mean that all parties you trust are untrusted sources since this is a statement they can not prove.

After all, if you do the movements in such a way that it works as an integrated defense... does this not mean you at that point have grasped the defense built into the attacks? This would render your comment invalid.

So I finish yet again by saying, remove logic as a term in your text. We are not having a logical discussion here since there is nothing logical going on in this thread.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 5, 2016)

guy b said:


> Lin siu dai da


But that term or saying denotes much more than an attack being prevented through the placement of another attack.
Or do you not use gum sao, lap sao, huen sao, or other type functions?


----------



## wtxs (Oct 5, 2016)

Danny T said:


> But that term or saying denotes much more than an attack being prevented through the placement of another attack.
> _*Or do you not use gum sao, lap sao, huen sao, or other type functions?*_



Don't you know by now he does VT ... only need punch!  All of the above are for chasing hand/arm.


----------



## guy b (Oct 5, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Given that you provided nothing but comments stating that there is no need to understand the defense in the attacks, this leads to the conclusion that you lack such understanding.



It only leads to this conclusion if your thinking process is faulty. Thankfully, since you made this mistake right at the start, I can spare myself the need to read the rest of your enormous and probably tedious post


----------



## guy b (Oct 5, 2016)

Danny T said:


> But that term or saying denotes much more than an attack being prevented through the placement of another attack.
> Or do you not use gum sao, lap sao, huen sao, or other type functions?



Not sure what secondary actions have to do with lin siu dai da?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2016)

guy b said:


> Popularity on this forum isn't particularly important to me. I just hate to see VT (and logical argument) degraded to such an extent. If people are doing it in the hope of fitting in and making friends on this forum then I would say that is pretty sad.


Actually, you're missing the "logic" in your "logical argument". Saying the defense is included, so you don't have to understand defense is nonsense. If that is true, you can only ever repeat exactly the motions you were taught, because you can't synthesize new movements (to react to variations of situations) unless you follow the principles, which requires understanding.

You either don't understand this, or you simply like the dogma of "attack only, don't defend" so much you can't even talk about defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2016)

guy b said:


> You said "show me where there is no defence built into VT"
> 
> I never made this claim
> 
> Therefore your question is nonsensical



Actually, this is what led to that exchange:



gpseymour said:


> All styles include defense. Just because the primary aim is attack doesn't mean there's no defense. If you don't defend, then you ignore the incoming punch and let it hit where it may.





guy b said:


> Complete misunderstanding of VT



You appear to be telling me defense is an unintentional side-effect, which is patently incorrect. I know this because if it were unintentional, it wouldn't work on a repeatable basis. The principle is that attacking movements include the defense in them, so there's normally no need for separate defense. Tell me how that is nonsense.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 5, 2016)

guy b said:


> Not sure what secondary actions have to do with lin siu dai da?


Keep studying.


----------



## guy b (Oct 6, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Keep studying.



Don't see how it fits conceptually, and would indicate confusion from the perspective of VT. Seeking such secondary actions would indicate unnecessary complication/hand chasing. Further study unlikely to completely alter fundmental strategy of the system.


----------



## guy b (Oct 6, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You appear to be telling me defense is an unintentional side-effect



I am not telling you this. The system has been designed by people with a certain intent and strategy. The way VT works is not unintentional. 

What I am saying is that VT functions without having to think consciously about defence. It also functions without fully understanding how the system works providing sufficient work has been done with a good teacher- i.e. morons can be good at VT too, they just won't be very good teachers of the system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2016)

guy b said:


> I am not telling you this. The system has been designed by people with a certain intent and strategy. The way VT works is not unintentional.
> 
> What I am saying is that VT functions without having to think consciously about defence. It also functions without fully understanding how the system works providing sufficient work has been done with a good teacher- i.e. morons can be good at VT too, they just won't be very good teachers of the system.


I've never seen a system that functioned properly if you didn't understand the principles. I doubt VT is so vastly different from every other martial arts system out there.


----------



## KPM (Oct 6, 2016)

guy b said:


> Don't see how it fits conceptually, and would indicate confusion from the perspective of VT. Seeking such secondary actions would indicate unnecessary complication/hand chasing. Further study unlikely to completely alter fundmental strategy of the system.



As I pointed out on the other thread, your time would be better spent and everyone may actually benefit if, rather than these back and forth exchanges that accomplish nothing, you were to restate your point in a different way....elaborate on it rather than just all this "witty banter".   Avoid the one-liner responses that really don't tell anything.  Actually engage in a friendly discussion.  Explain your position with details and examples.  That will accomplish much more than what we are seeing on this thread.


----------



## guy b (Oct 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> As I pointed out on the other thread, your time would be better spent and everyone may actually benefit if, rather than these back and forth exchanges that accomplish nothing, you were to restate your point in a different way....elaborate on it rather than just all this "witty banter".   Avoid the one-liner responses that really don't tell anything.  Actually engage in a friendly discussion.  Explain your position with details and examples.  That will accomplish much more than what we are seeing on this thread.



I just did so. It isn't meant to be witty banter. I will be happy to discuss further if Danny T elaborates on how he incorporates seconday actions into his lin siu dai da strategy. For me those are things that happen when attacking lines and closed and need to be cleared, not primary attacking strategy


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2016)

guy b said:


> I just did so. It isn't meant to be witty banter. I will be happy to discuss further if Danny T elaborates on how he incorporates seconday actions into his lin siu dai da strategy. For me those are things that happen when attacking lines and closed and need to be cleared, not primary attacking strategy


Ah, so you DO use those things.


----------



## guy b (Oct 6, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Ah, so you DO use those things.



Of course, why would you assume not?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2016)

guy b said:


> Of course, why would you assume not?


Because of your terse, unexplained replies earlier, which left the impression that you didn't. This was my point in a post a few minute ago about expanding your replies. When you reply with the fewest words possible, there's no explanation to help us understand your point. It sounded to me like you were saying you didn't use those things, which seemed odd. The later post clarified that, by accident.


----------



## guy b (Oct 6, 2016)

Ok, I will make more effort to explain in more detail when I post replies


----------



## Danny T (Oct 6, 2016)

At its highest and most efficient level (which is what we strive for) a single limb both attacks and defends.
At its lowest and least efficient level  (which in reality happens within the dynamics of fighting) because it is a secondary action, both limbs are momentarily utilized - one to deflect / redirect thereby clearing the line/s while the other continues with the attack followed by the first with a continuation of attacking. Still is LSDD


----------



## guy b (Oct 6, 2016)

Danny T said:


> At its highest and most efficient level (which is what we strive for) a single limb both attacks and defends.
> At its lowest and least efficient level  (which in reality happens within the dynamics of fighting) because it is a secondary action, both limbs are momentarily utilized - one to deflect / redirect thereby clearing the line/s while the other continues with the attack followed by the first with a continuation of attacking. Still is LSDD



LSDD is simultaneous attack and defence in the same arm. It is what makes VT unique and special. 

Helping actions are secondary, not LSDD, not optimally simple, not optimally direct, not optimally efficient


----------



## KPM (Oct 6, 2016)

I've learned that LSDD also includes the idea of striking with one hand while defending with the other.  Is this not also "simultaneous attack and defense"?  Where in the kuen kit does it specify that it applies only to one arm at a time?


----------



## Danny T (Oct 6, 2016)

guy b said:


> LSDD is simultaneous attack and defence in the same arm. It is what makes VT unique and special.
> 
> Helping actions are secondary, not LSDD, not optimally simple, not optimally direct, not optimally efficient


LSDD at its its highest and most efficient level (which is what we strive for) a single limb both attacks and defends. Can also be done with the legs as well.

There are other things within wing chun that join to make it unique and special not just LSDD.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> I've learned that LSDD also includes the idea of striking with one hand while defending with the other.  Is this not also "simultaneous attack and defense"?  Where in the kuen kit does it specify that it applies only to one arm at a time?



That's how LSDD is defined in other Southern CMAs.

VT borrows this existing terminology and further defines the unique trait of VT as "_da-sau jik si siu-sau_" (the striking arm is also the neutralizing arm).

When using an auxiliary action in VT, the striking arm still possesses dual capability.

So, LSDD is no longer two arms performing separate actions as in other arts, but one arm capable of performing both, even when using an auxiliary action.

This is the unique skill of VT. If we understand terminology by definitions from other arts, it will confuse the VT fighting strategy, i.e.; primary, auxiliary, and remedial actions will be used out of order, resulting in an inefficient mess with drastically reduced effectiveness.


----------



## guy b (Oct 7, 2016)

LFJ said:


> That's how LSDD is defined in other Southern CMAs.
> 
> VT borrows this existing terminology and further defines the unique trait of VT as "_da-sau jik si siu-sau_" (the striking arm is also the neutralizing arm).
> 
> ...



Absolutely, and this is what differentiates VT from other systems. LSDD with da sau jik si siu sau is the embodyment of optimal simplicity, directness and efficiency. It is first idea we practice, and the one we return to throughout the system. 

This is why the pole is such a fundamental form in the system. Functional VT is like pole fighting with 2 poles (or 4 arms)



> This is the unique skill of VT. If we understand terminology by definitions from other arts, it will confuse the VT fighting strategy, i.e.; primary, auxiliary, and remedial actions will be used out of order, resulting in an inefficient mess with drastically reduced effectiveness.



Correct, and this seems to happen 99% of the time


----------



## guy b (Oct 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> I've learned that LSDD also includes the idea of striking with one hand while defending with the other.  Is this not also "simultaneous attack and defense"?  Where in the kuen kit does it specify that it applies only to one arm at a time?



Striking with one hand while defending with the other is simultaneous attack and defence but compared to LSDD with da sau jik si siu sau it is less efficient, less simple, less direct. It also doesn't confer the massive advantage that VT LSDD does, hence the reason the system focuses on it as the fundamental stand out different and amazing thing from the very start and in almost everything we do.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 7, 2016)

Some who didn't learn the system in full went looking elsewhere for answers, often to other Southern CMAs, to see how similar terminology is used there and then fill their gaps and justify their methods. Saves face, they reckon.

And I'm certain this (LSDD in VT) has been explained to these guys a number of times here. Why do they still seem confused as if they've never had it spelled out before?


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 7, 2016)

Actually, I think I have a much better understanding of you and Guy's VT from reading your posts. The connection came when you (months ago) were explaining the methods, and when combined with a post from guy (also, months ago) about VT being pole centric...it clicked. So, for that...thank you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## KPM (Oct 7, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Some who didn't learn the system in full went looking elsewhere for answers, often to other Southern CMAs, to see how similar terminology is used there and then fill their gaps and justify their methods. Saves face, they reckon.
> 
> And I'm certain this (LSDD in VT) has been explained to these guys a number of times here. Why do they still seem confused as if they've never had it spelled out before?



Explanations often get lost within the drama of long contentious threads.  Seldom have either you or Guy simply just explained something without it having to be drawn out of you in an argument.  So, thank you for the current straight-forward answer to the question.   You see, I did learn both.  I learned the one arm version as the best expression, but I also learned that it applied to both arms.   I did not learn the 2nd half of the Kuen Kit that you mentioned, so thanks for that!


----------



## guy b (Oct 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> Explanations often get lost within the drama of long contentious threads.  Seldom have either you or Guy simply just explained something without it having to be drawn out of you in an argument.  So, thank you for the current straight-forward answer to the question.   You see, I did learn both.  I learned the one arm version as the best expression, but I also learned that it applied to both arms.   I did not learn the 2nd half of the Kuen Kit that you mentioned, so thanks for that!



I think this ground has been covered before in quite a lot of detail, for example see this thread.

But it is nice to hear that the message has been received.

In the system that I do the single arm always contains both attack and defence function, no matter what is happening with the other arm.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 7, 2016)

guy b said:


> and means the single arm always contains attack and defence function, no matter what is happening with the other arm



Right. So, say an auxiliary action is needed, e.g. _paak-da_, LSDD (in VT) doesn't refer to the two arms working together, but still to the dual-function of the striking/neutralizing arm always in play should further obstruction be on its attacking line. It's always there.


----------



## guy b (Oct 7, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Right. So, say an auxiliary action is needed, e.g. _paak-da_, LSDD (in VT) doesn't refer to the two arms working together, but still to the dual-function of the striking/neutralizing arm always in play should further obstruction be on its attacking line. It's always there.



Yes, very well stated


----------



## LFJ (Oct 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> I learned the one arm version as the best expression, but I also learned that it applied to both arms.



The problem I see with applying it to two-arm actions is what I said about things being used out of order and confusing VT fighting strategy... 

So, auxiliary actions (e.g.; _paak_; _jat_) could be seen as valid first responses, but that wouldn't be simple, direct, or efficient, and would be seen as arm-chasing in VT.

Worse though, would be remedial actions (e.g.; _bong_; _laap_; _biu_), normally used to recover from disadvantageous positions where primary and auxiliary actions aren't possible, jumping all the way up to primary position.

Not only is this not simple, direct, or efficient either, but it would be extreme arm-chasing and very dangerous.


----------



## guy b (Oct 7, 2016)

I think also important to recognise that not applying LSDD is just not as effective and doesn't allow you to fight as well. You get punched in the face more often, you lose attacking effectiveness. Percentages go down, failure goes up. Messes up the whole strategy


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2016)

guy b said:


> I think this ground has been covered before in quite a lot of detail, for example see this thread.
> 
> But it is nice to hear that the message has been received.
> 
> In the system that I do the single arm always contains both attack and defence function, no matter what is happening with the other arm.


 I'm curious about this concept. If the second arm is performing some auxiliary function that provides the defense, how is the single arm both attacking and defending? Or is it a matter of keeping the potential for both in that single arm?


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'm curious about this concept. If the second arm is performing some auxiliary function that provides the defense, how is the single arm both attacking and defending? Or is it a matter of keeping the potential for both in that single arm?


Has to do with intent, shape, elbow position & pressure etc... not to mention having properly trained feet/footwork/structure to support what the arm is trying to accomplish. 
Got any WC'ers down your way you could explore this with?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Has to do with intent, shape, elbow position & pressure etc... not to mention having properly trained feet/footwork/structure to support what the arm is trying to accomplish.
> Got any WC'ers down your way you could explore this with?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


None that I know of. But a bit of investigation might find some.

To your response, so the principle is maintained by keeping the functional ability (the potential) in the "single" arm, even if it isn't having to perform both functions at that point, because an auxiliary action by the second arm has performed one of them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2016)

@guy b I'm looking to get some clarification on a point, because I think you and I may have misunderstood each others' posts. You said earlier in this thread that deflecting and redirection weren't separate actions in VT. In the videos you posted here, I see both people using deflection (not so much redirection) at times when they are not attacking. Help me understand the distinction.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> None that I know of. But a bit of investigation might find some.
> 
> To your response, so the principle is maintained by keeping the functional ability (the potential) in the "single" arm, even if it isn't having to perform both functions at that point, because an auxiliary action by the second arm has performed one of them.


One possible example:
WC contains a shapes which 'wedge', or 'disperse' or 'sink' or...etc etc... imagine one of your arms doing this...with a fist at the end of it...while punching a dude in the chicklets. 
The trained elbow (position, and pressure) accomplishes the defense while enroute to its offense. Other hand 'wu sao' is waiting in reserve...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> One possible example:
> WC contains a shapes which 'wedge', or 'disperse' or 'sink' or...etc etc... imagine one of your arms doing this...with a fist at the end of it...while punching a dude in the chicklets.
> The trained elbow (position, and pressure) accomplishes the defense while enroute to its offense. Other hand 'wu sao' is waiting in reserve...
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


Right. I understand that part. I was referring to an earlier exchange with Guy B. He stated (not a quote, my understanding of his comment) that the "single hand" is _always _both attacking and defending, even when the other hand is performing an auxiliary action that defends. If that auxiliary action is defending, there's a reasonable chance the "single hand" has nothing left to defend (its path to target is now clear), so how is the concept of performing both functions maintained? I know it can do both, but in this case it has nothing left to defend, so how do you maintain the principle in this case of having the single hand do both? Is it maintained in keeping the potential for both in that one hand, or is there something I'm missing?

I've always been intrigued by this dual-function hand principle. We use it sparingly in NGA - I suspect it shows up in every art somewhere - but it's so much more prevalent here.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> He stated (not a quote, my understanding of his comment) that the "single hand" is _always _both attacking and defending, even when the other hand is performing an auxiliary action that defends. If that auxiliary action is defending, there's a reasonable chance the "single hand" has nothing left to defend (its path to target is now clear), so how is the concept of performing both functions maintained? I know it can do both, but in this case it has nothing left to defend, so how do you maintain the principle in this case of having the single hand do both? Is it maintained in keeping the potential for both in that one hand, or is there something I'm missing?
> .



I'm not sure what others call it (what you're asking about), but it's sometimes referred to as a 'sleeping' hand. Many WC'ers do it. It is not at all desirable. 

Both hands must remain 'awake' and in 'attack' mode...forward forward forward. 

(Btw...sent you a pm)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## LFJ (Oct 7, 2016)

@gpseymour 

Try not to think so much about the opponent's arms and what you may or may not be doing to them.

The idea is to dominate space through attack, so as to not need to think and be reactive. 

An auxiliary action doesn't "defend" like a reactive block, but helps to clear obstructions as part of our proactive attack.

The striking arm is also capturing space as it attacks. So, whether further obstruction should appear or the way is free, it is automatically "defending" by taking space/ clearing the line while attacking center.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2016)

LFJ said:


> @gpseymour
> 
> Try not to think so much about the opponent's arms and what you may or may not be doing to them.
> 
> ...


Ah! That last point is the one I was looking for. So the approach is the same whether there's anything to clear or not - a consistent use of the principle, so if an unexpected obstruction makes its way in, the striking arm has captured that space and/or will clear it.

Thanks!


----------



## LFJ (Oct 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Ah! That last point is the one I was looking for. So the approach is the same whether there's anything to clear or not - a consistent use of the principle, so if an unexpected obstruction makes its way in, the striking arm has captured that space and/or will clear it.
> 
> Thanks!



Yes, that's the primary idea. Always present. Non-thinking, simple, direct, efficient, etc..


----------

