# Good teaching clip



## guy b

Nice exchange of info here and good teaching methodology:


----------



## guy b

Another good teaching clip:


----------



## Vajramusti

guy b said:


> Another good teaching clip:


Roll a bit and then push


----------



## guy b

Vajramusti said:


> Roll a bit and then push



Don't like?


----------



## Vajramusti

guy b said:


> Don't like?


-----------------------------------------------
so so


----------



## guy b

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------
> so so



Can you give some pointers on what you would recommend to do differently please?


----------



## Danny T

Joy, would you be willing to address one or two of the aspects in the above videos that you disagree with?


----------



## Vajramusti

Danny T said:


> Joy, would you be willing to address one or two of the aspects in the above videos that you disagree with?


--------------------------------------------------------------
Danny-A comment reluctantly: He appears to be hitting the other person's hand in the lop/punch sequence.

Aiming at the centerline would be better. Its the other person's job to deflect the punch wit bong sao.


----------



## LFJ

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Danny-A comment reluctantly: He appears to be hitting the other person's hand in the lop/punch sequence.
> 
> Aiming at the centerline would be better. Its the other person's job to deflect the punch wit bong sao.



Reluctantly because it shows you apparently just felt like putting a big red *X* on the post and leaving a stupid comment.

Hitting the other person's hand? What are you even talking about? Which video, who, and when?

There were obvious checks for "hit the face" in both videos.


----------



## Danny T

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Danny-A comment reluctantly: He appears to be hitting the other person's hand in the lop/punch sequence.
> 
> Aiming at the centerline would be better. Its the other person's job to deflect the punch wit bong sao.


Thank you Joy.
Something I noted in the first video is what appears to be the crossing of the center to gain the Lap. Something in my training would be considered an no-no.


----------



## LFJ

It would help if you guys would not be so vague. Point to a specific action in time and discuss it.

Let me give you an example of critiquing a drill in a clear, detailed, and constructive manner, telling what is problematic and how I would fix it in this post and continuing the discussion by follow-up in this post.

If you disagree that the videos in the OP here show a nice exchange of information and good teaching methodology, explain exactly why.


----------



## guy b

I would really like further clarification Joy, with time points and detailed analysis as LFJ outlines. Maybe then we can get somewhere?


----------



## ShortBridge

It's a nice video and I appreciate you sharing it. It's fairly consistent with how I do this drill.

I appreciate seeing his physical correction of some of the positions. My SiFu is a good orator and have some of his ability to explain things, but I have a language gap with one of my students and it has challenged me to look for non-verbal ways of teaching and correcting.


----------



## guy b

Danny T said:


> Thank you Joy.
> Something I noted in the first video is what appears to be the crossing of the center to gain the Lap. Something in my training would be considered an no-no.



Do you understand which of the two clips Joy is referring to, and which time point in the clip i need to look at to see where his criticism applies? If you could also point me to the time in the first clip where your criticism applies then that would be great, thanks.


----------



## Juany118

Danny T said:


> Thank you Joy.
> Something I noted in the first video is what appears to be the crossing of the center to gain the Lap. Something in my training would be considered an no-no.


I was thinking the same thing.  As an example, and please correct me if what you learn is different.  If I am going to lap the opponent's left with my left I am going to have to zone to his outside/flank, typically using a cheun sau as cover as it drops easily into a lap.  I am not however reaching across my center to accomplish it.

Now if my opponent has brought his hand/arm across my center then of course I can lap but it is HE that reached across my center, I don't reach across it myself.

The above is my current understanding.  I think it would actually be an interesting discussion to analyze the "why" of the difference because I may learn something useful.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Do you understand which of the two clips Joy is referring to, and which time point in the clip i need to look at to see where his criticism applies? If you could also point me to the time in the first clip where your criticism applies then that would be great, thanks.


I THINK he may be referring to the first video, at about the 1:00 mark.  He appears to be feeding a _fak sau_ to the student's already waiting hand.  I could be wrong however.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Danny T

Juany118 said:


> I THINK he may be referring to the first video, at about the 1:00 mark.  He appears to be feeding a _fak sau_ to the student's already waiting hand.  I could be wrong however.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


Can't and won't speak for Joy but I agree with the above.


----------



## LFJ

Danny T said:


> Can't and won't speak for Joy but I agree with the above.



Joy was talking about the _laap_/punch sequence, as it seems you were. 

Juany is talking about_ faak-sau_.

You are being very unclear for some reason.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> If I am going to lap the opponent's left with my left I am going to have to zone to his outside/flank, typically using a cheun sau as cover as it drops easily into a lap.  I am not however reaching across my center to accomplish it.
> 
> Now if my opponent has brought his hand/arm across my center then of course I can lap but it is HE that reached across my center, I don't reach across it myself.



Are you still talking about the _laap-sau_ cycle?

How are you "zoning to his outside" without "reaching across your center"?


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I THINK he may be referring to the first video, at about the 1:00 mark.  He appears to be feeding a _fak sau_ to the student's already waiting hand.  I could be wrong however.



They were talking about the _laap-sau_ cycle. This is something else. So, I still don't really know what they're talking about, and they seem unwilling to discuss detail, though they are happy to *X* the video and say something vague about a "no-no".

Anyhow, it is feeding because it is a mutual drill, not fighting. The student had 4 months of training there, so it is still a little clumsy and unnatural.

The _laap_ + _faak_ sets up the next part for the student to train recovery of position to _wu-sau_ and replacing to check forward with the other hand to keep from being followed back, and reseting to find another tactical entry.

Hips, elbow, footwork, _man-wu_ switch all work together. The feeder then does another _laap_ + _faak_ to recover their position and set it up on the other side. A mutual drill. The partners swap roles at 1:33.

Later, this can be drilled in a more alive manner, as in the video below. Recover lost position to _wu-sau_ and check forward, reset to find another tactical entry, intercept and attack.


----------



## LFJ

A faster, more fluid example of the drill here briefly @1:27.

This is related to knife thinking, by the way. Cover, move, check/slice, not crossing your own arms so you don't get cut.


----------



## Lobo66

Yes, at one minute in the first video the teacher is reminding his student that his wu sau needs to be more active....needs to be there with forward intent.  He is definitely not attacking his students hand/arm needlessly.  

No one is "reaching" across the center in the lap sau cycle drill.  Remember : the bong and wu act together with pivoting footwork to change the angle.


----------



## LFJ

Lobo66 said:


> Yes, at one minute in the first video the teacher is reminding his student that his wu sau needs to be more active....needs to be there with forward intent.  He is definitely not attacking his students hand/arm needlessly.



Correct. Most people will have problems with unresponsive _wu-sau _when so much other movement is going on, both their partner's actions and their own. _Wu-sau_ always falls asleep or freezes up, especially at higher speeds. 

The instructor makes his _faak-sau_ slow and obvious to check the beginner at his pace.

The problem is people often look at VT drills as a match, this vs that, and don't realize there is cooperation, feeding, and checking for correct behaviors and errors of all sorts.

This is an important aspect of the training methodology, lost on people who are only thinking "versus".


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> They were talking about the _laap-sau_ cycle. This is something else. So, I still don't really know what they're talking about, and they seem unwilling to discuss detail, though they are happy to *X* the video and say something vague about a "no-no".
> 
> Anyhow, it is feeding because it is a mutual drill, not fighting. The student had 4 months of training there, so it is still a little clumsy and unnatural.
> 
> The _laap_ + _faak_ sets up the next part for the student to train recovery of position to _wu-sau_ and replacing to check forward with the other hand to keep from being followed back, and reseting to find another tactical entry.
> 
> Hips, elbow, footwork, _man-wu_ switch all work together. The feeder then does another _laap_ + _faak_ to recover their position and set it up on the other side. A mutual drill. The partners swap roles at 1:33.
> 
> Later, this can be drilled in a more alive manner, as in the video below. Recover lost position to _wu-sau_ and check forward, reset to find another tactical entry, intercept and attack.



Why does the student enter with a Pak and punch at :15?


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> Why does the student enter with a Pak and punch at :15?



He does it throughout the drill in the role of the feeder.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> He does it throughout the drill in the role of the feeder.



I see.
So, in that respect he used the pak to enter to clear the way because Bayers arm was already an obstacle blocking the feeders entry line (?)


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> I see.
> So, in that respect he used the pak to enter to clear the way because Bayers arm was already an obstacle blocking the feeders entry line (?)



Yes. What do you see PB do next? Intercept with just a straight punch. Range, position, and LSJC permit this. Otherwise an auxiliary action will be used, as later when he uses _jat_ and _paak_.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> Yes. What do you see PB do next? Intercept with just a straight punch. Range, position, and LSJC permit this. Otherwise an auxiliary action will be used, as later when he uses _jat_ and _paak_.



Understood. 
Originally I was expecting the student to enter with a punch onto Bayers arm, and then, if needed, pak the arm out of his way in order to continue feeding etc.


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> Understood.
> Originally I was expecting the student to enter with a punch onto Bayers arm, and then, if needed, pak the arm out of his way in order to continue feeding etc.



They aren't free sparring, as you know. No one is going to _paak-da_ this side, then _paak-da_ that side over and over. That's why it's called feeding. It's to set up the drill.

It's also not likely you are just going to enter on someone from out of range and punch straight through their guard anyway. They are alive too. By the time you _paak_ their arm to restart your failed punch they will have already acted.

The thing with auxiliary actions is that they aren't necessarily always secondary actions, as in move #2 and never used to initiate. It depends on the circumstance (timing, distance, position) and what is needed. It's just inefficient to use them where the primary tool, the punch, alone can accomplish both tasks.

"_Kiu loi, kiu seung gwo. Mo kiu, ji jou kiu_."

Bridge is an attack line. If it's open, cross it. If not, open it or draw open another, which is what this drill is about. You can't always move forward and force entries. Some times you need to reset and draw open another way. But even when "retreating", distance is controlled and forward intent is present.


----------



## Lobo66

Good post.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> They aren't free sparring, as you know. No one is going to _paak-da_ this side, then _paak-da_ that side over and over. That's why it's called feeding. It's to set up the drill.
> 
> It's also not likely you are just going to enter on someone from out of range and punch straight through their guard anyway. They are alive too. By the time you _paak_ their arm to restart your failed punch they will have already acted.
> 
> The thing with auxiliary actions is that they aren't necessarily always secondary actions, as in move #2 and never used to initiate. It depends on the circumstance (timing, distance, position) and what is needed. It's just inefficient to use them where the primary tool, the punch, alone can accomplish both tasks.
> 
> "_Kiu loi, kiu seung gwo. Mo kiu, ji jou kiu_."
> 
> Bridge is an attack line. If it's open, cross it. If not, open it or draw open another, which is what this drill is about. You can't always move forward and force entries. Some times you need to reset and draw open another way. But even when "retreating", distance is controlled and forward intent is present.



Ok. That helps. 
Next question would be: do you delineate specific hands to the "secondary" category, and other hands to the "auxiliary" category?


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> Ok. That helps.
> Next question would be: do you delineate specific hands to the "secondary" category, and other hands to the "auxiliary" category?



I think of primary as main, and auxiliary as aiding the primary. Not what's first followed by second. Auxiliary actions may be secondary, and usually are, but not in all cases.

The only categories I've described are primary (hit), auxiliary (_paak_; _jat_), and remedial (_bong_, _laap_, _biu_).

Ideally, remedial actions will not be used where primary or auxiliary actions can be used, and auxiliary actions will not be used where primary actions can be used, as a matter of simplicity, directness, and efficiency.

It's not so much about defining and restricting actions to a particular order, as it is about the appropriateness of each kind of action given timing, distance, and position.


----------



## LFJ

By the way, I'm not sure if all other WSLVT guys use similar terminology. These "categories" are just terms I use to express my perception of the VT fighting strategy.

In most encounters, primary and auxiliary is all that will be/I have used. VT fighting is quite simple, even if the training can be complex.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> I think of primary as main, and auxiliary as aiding the primary. Not what's first followed by second. Auxiliary actions may be secondary, and usually are, but not in all cases.
> 
> The only categories I've described are primary (hit), auxiliary (_paak_; _jat_), and remedial (_bong_, _laap_, _biu_).
> 
> Ideally, remedial actions will not be used where primary or auxiliary actions can be used, and auxiliary actions will not be used where primary actions can be used, as a matter of simplicity, directness, and efficiency.
> 
> It's not so much about defining and restricting actions to a particular order, as it is about the appropriateness of each kind of action given timing, distance, and position.



Thx for the info. I think I'm getting a clearer picture...
So, when you say "hit"...does that apply to a punch (regardless of height), palms, and kicks?


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> Thx for the info. I think I'm getting a clearer picture...
> So, when you say "hit"...does that apply to a punch (regardless of height), palms, and kicks?



Mainly the punch. Palms can be used. Kicks depend on the situation.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> Correct. Most people will have problems with unresponsive _wu-sau _when so much other movement is going on, both their partner's actions and their own. _Wu-sau_ always falls asleep or freezes up, especially at higher speeds.
> 
> The instructor makes his _faak-sau_ slow and obvious to check the beginner at his pace.
> 
> The problem is people often look at VT drills as a match, this vs that, and don't realize there is cooperation, feeding, and checking for correct behaviors and errors of all sorts.
> 
> This is an important aspect of the training methodology, lost on people who are only thinking "versus".



Excellent post and great analysis in this thread


----------



## guy b

Look forward to further detail from Juany, Danny and Joy to clarify what they mean.


----------



## wtxs

LFJ said:


> Are you still talking about the _laap-sau_ cycle?
> 
> How are you "zoning to his outside" without "reaching across your center"?



Angling footwork with facing.


----------



## Juany118

Lobo66 said:


> Yes, at one minute in the first video the teacher is reminding his student that his wu sau needs to be more active....needs to be there with forward intent.  He is definitely not attacking his students hand/arm needlessly.
> 
> No one is "reaching" across the center in the lap sau cycle drill.  Remember : the bong and wu act together with pivoting footwork to change the angle.



On the first bit gotcha.  I was just thinking there are ways to achieve the same goal that could be done with the more "traditional" strikes along the center line.  Not a biggie though, the fak does a worthy job of "checking" on the wu.

As for the last I watched the first video a bunch of times, and maybe it's just camera angle bit it looks like there are times that an elbow is bent at 90 degrees and reaching across the body.  At work on my phone atm.  When I get home I will pull it up on my PC and slow it down this time to check.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> On the first bit gotcha.  I was just thinking there are ways to achieve the same goal that could be done with the more "traditional" strikes along the center line.  Not a biggie though, the fak does a worthy job of "checking" on the wu.
> 
> As for the last I watched the first video a bunch of times, and maybe it's just camera angle bit it looks like there are times that an elbow is bent at 90 degrees and reaching across the body.  At work on my phone atm.  When I get home I will pull it up on my PC and slow it down this time to check.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Providing a time stamp would be helpful, thanks


----------



## wckf92

guy b said:


> Nice exchange of info here and good teaching methodology:



Questions:
1. Who is the instructor in this video?
2. Who trained him? WSL? PB? 
3. What is the Chinese writing on both sides of his wooden dummy? 
Thanks.


----------



## wckf92

guy b said:


> Another good teaching clip:



I'm not familiar with PB's knife form, but there seems to be some good knife footwork going on here....


----------



## Vajramusti

guy b said:


> Look forward to further detail from Juany, Danny and Joy to clarify what they mean.


------------------------------------------------------------------I already  said what I had to say in responding to Danny and I understood what he said. I don't play LFJ/guy games of sarcasm. PB is ok, DP  is ok, WSL's ex brother in law is ok, Gary Lam is ok-they are different from each other-that too is ok. I have done chi sao with WSL-that too is ok.
But I am on a different path. Don't mind dis cussing my path  when the discussion is civil. I think that Gezer's style of civility is worth aiming for.


----------



## Vajramusti

wckf92 said:


> Questions:
> 1. Who is the instructor in this video?
> 2. Who trained him? WSL? PB?
> 3. What is the Chinese writing on both sides of his wooden dummy?
> Thanks.


--------------------------------- A student of PB and he targets the bong sao of the other guy with a punch aimed at the ceiling.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Providing a time stamp would be helpful, thanks


I will if my more thorough review dictates.  No sense going to the trouble if in slow motion it proves to be a camera angle issue.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Vajramusti said:


> I am on a different path. Don't mind dis cussing my path  when the discussion is civil. I think that Gezer's style of civility is worth aiming for.



I hope I haven't been uncivil here? I would appreciate further detail, currently a bit confused what you are talking about in relation to these clips.


----------



## Juany118

Juany118 said:


> I will if my more thorough review dictates.  No sense going to the trouble if in slow motion it proves to be a camera angle issue.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Okay after viewing, note only commenting on video 1 and in slow motion.

first beyond the fak feed he is also doing as Joy noted



Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------- A student of PB and he targets the bong sao of the other guy with a punch aimed at the ceiling.



Next he applies his own lap at time with an elbow bent at almost 90 degrees and at times in line with his opposite shoulder.  Time check isn't really necessary because  start basically from the beginning.  I'ts one thing to have a punch deflected up after being intercepted by a bong, something else to have your strike start with your arm pointing at the ceiling.  Video doesn't really lie in this case.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> first beyond the fak feed he is also doing as Joy noted



The feed is intentional, because they are working together, not fighting, as explained, and as you already acknowledged, it "_does a worthy job of checking on the_ _wu_".

Joy said; "_targets the bong sao of the other guy with a punch aimed at the ceiling_".

On the punch side of this drill, the focus is on coordination of _jat_+punch, and full body power through the hip and elbow connection behind the punch, hence you see the low elbow driving forward. Focus on the hand, and you miss the important bit. Look for the elbow and hip.

This drill is not trying to actually punch and block each other in another versus match off.

The punch and the _bong_ serve cooperatively as reference points for the partners to train correct hip and elbow drive for the punch and elbow rotation for the _bong_, and to get the necessary repetition in to condition these behaviors.

That said, the punch is aimed at the chin, and would continue to hit there if the _bong_ wasn't present, as the instructor checks for several times.

Again, if you are thinking "versus", actually trying to hit and force blocks, and looking at the hand, you're missing all the important development of mechanics. This drill is not time for fighting each other or training this vs that applications.

Many actions in VT training are uncompleted because the focus is on developing certain aspects of the full action. If you don't understand the abstract nature of the training system, you will be looking at it all wrong and change things that shouldn't be changed, losing the entire benefit of the training in exchange for applications.

Have another look and focus on the hip and elbow, not the hand and trying to actually hit the other guy in the face.



> Next he applies his own lap at time with an elbow bent at almost 90 degrees and at times in line with his opposite shoulder.



_Wu_ is supposed to be offset behind the _bong_. It can't be extended much further without sending it out to block along with your own _bong_ forearm like a shield as you do in TWC.

This is not preferable to us because it is committing two arms against one and losing your next hit position so you have to do another move to clear before striking, since your _wu_ cannot punch.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Okay after viewing, note only commenting on video 1 and in slow motion.
> 
> first beyond the fak feed he is also doing as Joy noted



Joy seems to have changed his criticism since the start of the thread:



Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Danny-A comment reluctantly: He appears to be hitting the other person's hand in the lop/punch sequence.
> 
> Aiming at the centerline would be better. Its the other person's job to deflect the punch wit bong sao.



and



Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------- A student of PB and he targets the bong sao of the other guy with a punch aimed at the ceiling.



Do you agree with one or both of these criticisms?


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> The feed is intentional, because they are working together, not fighting, as explained, and as you already acknowledged, it "_does a worthy job of checking on the_ _wu_".
> 
> Joy said; "_targets the bong sao of the other guy with a punch aimed at the ceiling_".
> 
> On the punch side of this drill, the focus is on coordination of _jat_+punch, and full body power through the hip and elbow connection behind the punch, hence you see the low elbow driving forward. Focus on the hand, and you miss the important bit. Look for the elbow and hip.
> 
> This drill is not trying to actually punch and block each other in another versus match off.
> 
> The punch and the _bong_ serve cooperatively as reference points for the partners to train correct hip and elbow drive for the punch and elbow rotation for the _bong_, and to get the necessary repetition in to condition these behaviors.
> 
> That said, the punch is aimed at the chin, and would continue to hit there if the _bong_ wasn't present, as the instructor checks for several times.
> 
> Again, if you are thinking "versus", actually trying to hit and force blocks, and looking at the hand, you're missing all the important development of mechanics. This drill is not time for fighting each other or training this vs that applications.
> 
> Many actions in VT training are uncompleted because the focus is on developing certain aspects of the full action. If you don't understand the abstract nature of the training system, you will be looking at it all wrong and change things that shouldn't be changed, losing the entire benefit of the training in exchange for applications.
> 
> Have another look and focus on the hip and elbow, not the hand and trying to actually hit the other guy in the face.
> 
> _Wu_ is supposed to be offset behind the _bong_. It can't be extended much further without sending it out to block along with your own _bong_ forearm like a shield as you do in TWC.
> 
> This is not preferable to us because it is committing two arms against one and losing your next hit position so you have to do another move to clear before striking, since your _wu_ cannot punch.



Good breakdown


----------



## LFJ

Vajramusti said:


> But I am on a different path. Don't mind dis cussing my path  when the discussion is civil.



To get a perspective on where you're coming from, we can look at how the _laap-sau_ drill is performed in your lineage. Let me know if this is not a good representation of it, though.

What we see from 5:28 is winding up the _wu-sau_ by drawing it back to the side of their cheek each time before chopping forward with it.

As he explains earlier at 3:16, the target is the chest. So, it's a dropping punch as he shows, and in the course of the drill it is dropping on the partner's arm.

We also see no hip and elbow drive, because of this dropping punch. So, there is no body behind it. It's just winding up, chopping, and banging on each other's arms back and forth. 

In the second video below we see a more free and active practice of it, but still see the same winding up and banging on the arms.


----------



## LFJ

LFJ said:


> The only categories I've described are primary (hit), auxiliary (_paak_; _jat_), and remedial (_bong_, _laap_, _biu_).
> 
> Ideally, remedial actions will not be used where primary or auxiliary actions can be used, and auxiliary actions will not be used where primary actions can be used, as a matter of simplicity, directness, and efficiency.
> 
> It's not so much about defining and restricting actions to a particular order, as it is about the appropriateness of each kind of action given timing, distance, and position.



So, here's an example of the unthinkable for me, from Joy's lineage (HKM > AF >); closing the gap with remedial actions.

From a stiff and stilted ready stance, he slides in and places his arm in a disadvantageous position under the opponent's arms.

He then has to use _bong-sau_ to recover from this bad position he put himself in. But all it does is lift the arm straight up. So then he has to use _laap-sau_ to fix this problem as well.

Already two remedial actions fixing problems he made for himself while closing the gap before finally being able to strike.


----------



## Lobo66

A lot of banging against arms in those videos.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Joy seems to have changed his criticism since the start of the thread:
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with one or both of these criticisms?



I answered the first one already with my dialogue with Lobo earlier.  That said I believe the two are essentially showing the same concept.  It's just the fak sequence made some sense the way Lobo explained it.


----------



## guy b

You think that checking the wu hand with fak and training the punch are essentially showing the same concept? What would that be? And where does the whole reaching across centre criticism come into it? How do you position your wu hand?


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> You think that checking the wu hand with fak and training the punch are essentially showing the same concept? What would that be? And where does the whole reaching across centre criticism come into it? How do you position your wu hand?



No, the concept of Joy's criticism.  He says in the very quote you noted...



> ...Aiming at the centerline would be better...



So while I may see the point of Lobo's explanation regarding checking the _wu_ the idea of aiming at the Centerline and leaving it to the other person to do the right things or take a hit is also equally valid.

So, just on simple observation of the first video I see the instructor often crossing his own center line when he _laps_,   punching for the ceiling and feeding _faks_
As far as the _wu_ placement I am talking about where the lap occurs at the opposite shoulder. 

Now I won't question whether or not the instructor felt these things were good or necessary teaching tools. I don't know what, if any, issues the student has and not knowing the teacher I don't know his methodology.  Without understanding the context of that particular training session all we have to go on is what we see and part of what we see and that raises questions that should be asked, it doesn't imply judgement.


----------



## Vajramusti

Juany118 said:


> Okay after viewing, note only commenting on video 1 and in slow motion.
> 
> first beyond the fak feed he is also doing as Joy noted
> 
> 
> 
> Next he applies his own lap at time with an elbow bent at almost 90 degrees and at times in line with his opposite shoulder.  Time check isn't really necessary because  start basically from the beginning.  I'ts one thing to have a punch deflected up after being intercepted by a bong, something else to have your strike start with your arm pointing at the ceiling.  Video doesn't really lie in this case.





guy b said:


> Joy seems to have changed his criticism since the start of the thread:
> 
> ((Odd comment and perception. I have not changed my position.If PB's lop appeals to you-ok..
> why clutter the thread with just repetitions?)))


----------



## Vajramusti

One of the difficulties in talking about wing chun is many folks confuse development and application.
Lop sao as a developmental principle is not isomorphic with applications. The one- many  relationship comes from the logic of zero giving rise to many numbers...1,2,3 3 1/2. Functionally, lop sao when done right  and proper bis the mother of  various form of "grabbing' with complementary relationship of both hands and unified body structure and timing.
My remarks are directed to the list-am not interested in conversing with guy and lfj and lobo on this point.
Closing this thread may be a good idea.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> So, just on simple observation of the first video I see the instructor often crossing his own center line when he _laps_,   punching for the ceiling and feeding _faks_
> As far as the _wu_ placement I am talking about where the lap occurs at the opposite shoulder.



You are not being very observant or reading the replies if you think there is punching for the ceiling.

What problems do you think there are with an offset _wu _or feeding _faak_ to check the student's _wu_?


----------



## LFJ

Vajramusti said:


> am not interested in conversing with guy and lfj and lobo on this point.
> Closing this thread may be a good idea.



Closing this thread? 

You said you don't mind discussing your path when discussion is civil.

This discussion is civil and we are sharing information. 

Do you have nothing to say about the clips from your lineage? Is that why you want the thread closed?


----------



## guy b

Vajramusti said:


> One of the difficulties in talking about wing chun is many folks confuse development and application.



The WSL posters on this forum have always been very clear about the difference. I don't see any confusion here unless you mean from Juany which would be a bit harsh (he is trying to help you). 



> My remarks are directed to the list-am not interested in conversing with guy and lfj and lobo on this point.



I don't see what you have to be annoyed about in this discussion, nobody has been rude and interesting points have been raised. I can't understand why you would be annoyed with Lobo, he only just joined the forum and (correct me if I'm wrong) don't think he has ever even tried to speak to you 



> Closing this thread may be a good idea.



Why? I am confused how anything here could be interpreted as being offensive.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> You are not being very observant or reading the replies if you think there is punching for the ceiling.
> 
> What problems do you think there are with an offset _wu _or feeding _faak_ to check the student's _wu_?



Slow the video down and you see him moving his arm forward with his fist pointing to the ceiling out of the gate.  In essence all he does is move a virtual right angle towards the student.  As for the rest, asked and answered already.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## wckf92

Am I reading this correctly...that some here view crossing their centerline as a no-no or 'violation'?


----------



## ShortBridge

wckf92 said:


> Am I reading this correctly...that some here view crossing their centerline as a no-no or 'violation'?



Yes, definitely!

I regard it is a good rule to carefully break now and again, at strategic times, from strategic positions.


----------



## Juany118

wckf92 said:


> Am I reading this correctly...that some here view crossing their centerline as a no-no or 'violation'?


A real fight may force it, but it is typically avoided.  The reason being is that if you do it, in a real fight, you can essentially end up, for lack of a better term, tangling yourself up.  Also the idea is to maintain a proper structure that, among other things, allows you to always attack and defend with both arms simultaneously.  

Reach across your body with one arm and punch with the other.  Then do the same but only reach to your centerline.  I think you will feel a difference and that isn't even addressing the point that you can A. Tangle yourself up or B. That it can give your opponent an opportunity to trap both arms by pinning one under the other.

As I said a fight can force it to happen as they are dynamic, but in my training it's to be avoided via proper footwork and the like. 



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Slow the video down and you see him moving his arm forward with his fist pointing to the ceiling out of the gate.  In essence all he does is move a virtual right angle towards the student.  As for the rest, asked and answered already.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



What is his hip and elbow doing?


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> A real fight may force it, but it is typically avoided.  The reason being is that if you do it, in a real fight, you can essentially end up, for lack of a better term, tangling yourself up.  Also the idea is to maintain a proper structure that, among other things, allows you to always attack and defend with both arms simultaneously.
> 
> Reach across your body with one arm and punch with the other.  Then do the same but only reach to your centerline.  I think you will feel a difference and that isn't even addressing the point that you can A. Tangle yourself up or B. That it can give your opponent an opportunity to trap both arms by pinning one under the other.
> 
> As I said a fight can force it to happen as they are dynamic, but in my training it's to be avoided via proper footwork and the like.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



How do you interpret the section at the end of SNT? How do you position your wu?


----------



## guy b

ShortBridge said:


> Yes, definitely!
> 
> I regard it is a good rule to carefully break now and again, at strategic times, from strategic positions.



How do you position your wu hand?


----------



## guy b

edited


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> What is his hip and elbow doing?


You keep asking questions.  Here is an idea and if you follow through on this request I will start answering again.

The way a discussion works is one side (you in this case) puts forward a premise.  Other people make observations, give opinions or raise questions.  The OP then does what Lobo did, explains a potential reason for something, in that case feeding a _fak_.

Continuously asking new questions is not engaging in a discussion, it's fishing for something to can turn into a "gotcha" moment.  So if you care to address the points raised but a few of us, awesome, I would love to possibly learn something but if you are just going to keep fishing I am tapping out.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> You keep asking questions.  Here is an idea and if you follow through on this request I will start answering again.
> 
> The way a discussion works is one side (you in this case) puts forward a premise.  Other people make observations, give opinions or raise questions.  The OP then does what Lobo did, explains a potential reason for something, in that case feeding a _fak_.
> 
> Continuously asking new questions is not engaging in a discussion, it's fishing for something to can turn into a "gotcha" moment.  So if you care to address the points raised but a few of us, awesome, I would love to possibly learn something but if you are just going to keep fishing I am tapping out.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



I am phrasing it as questions so that you can feel your way to an answer without embarrassment. To phrase it in a different way, don't look at the direction the hand is pointing, that is irrelevant in this drill. Instead look at the direction of the elbow and hip drive. This is a major part of what the drill is training.

He is also instructing a beginner in terms of what do so much slower, more breaks and less fluid than between two experienced practitioners. I posted because I thought it was a good teaching clip, not because it is the best example of the drill that is available. It is useful in that it is slow and it breaks down what is being shown quite well


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Slow the video down and you see him moving his arm forward with his fist pointing to the ceiling out of the gate.  In essence all he does is move a virtual right angle towards the student.



Again, you are not being very observant and are either not reading or understanding replies.

This drill developes coordination between hip and elbow for full body power. 

If you try to actually punch each other, leading with the fist, you will overextend and the elbow will pop up to get over the _bong_ losing the hip-elbow connection, not to mention  position when the _bong_ hits it.

This is why VT punches are "uncommitted" and actions in training are often uncompleted to isolate important aspects. Development vs application.

What does the student's punch get trained to do when the _bong_ is not there? Extend to the chin because the elbow drives it forward to center.

If your mind is at the fist, bring it back to the elbow, keep it low connected to the hip, and have another look.



> As for the rest, asked and answered already.



Not really. You acknowldged the purpose of the _faak-sau_ feed and that it did what it was supposed to, but you keep mentioning it as if there is something wrong about it. What do you think is wrong with it?

As for crossing center, that doesn't happen because the _wu-sau_ is already offset and comes _to_ the center to remove the obstruction.

There is no entangling because this is a clearing action while the other hand is recycled.

For the same reason it is also not vulnerable to traps since both arms aren't extended together as in the TWC version of this drill.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> As I said a fight can force it to happen as they are dynamic, but in my training it's to be avoided via proper footwork and the like.



If your _wu-sau_ is not already in position you will have to first circle it to the outside of the guy's arm, or step to move your whole body around. 

Both indirect and inefficient. Better to have a _wu_ already ready to go.


----------



## ShortBridge

guy b said:


> How do you position your wu hand?



I'm not totally sure that I understand the question, if it's nuanced, but if it's not, then - on center.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> I am phrasing it as questions so that you can feel your way to an answer without embarrassment. To phrase it in a different way, don't look at the direction the hand is pointing, that is irrelevant in this drill. Instead look at the direction of the elbow and hip drive. This is a major part of what the drill is training.


 first it is never embarrassing to learn something new or find out we missed something.  That said I know those are also important to the drill, but elbow direction (in the SLT thread I refer to that using the term "forwarding energy") and hip drive while an important part indeed are just a part.  I think the following video with WSL himself, with PB, illustrates what I am getting at.






First, yes the _wu_ starts on the other side of the centerline BUT when it engages and _laps_ it is on the centerline.  Why?  Because the incoming strike should be on the centerline. A good example of what can happen if you engage while across the centerline is early in this video, also with WSL, where during chi sau he pins DP's left arm under the right.  I apologize if I wasn't clear before.  When I said "almost straight from the shoulder" I meant just that, the point of engagement, not just the start point, was also across the centerline.

Second in the first video you posted the arm is being basically thrusted at the student in the upright position, basically striking with the forearm head on, where as, WSL makes it clear that you should be "following through" so to speak so the arm, albeit briefly, rides/slides up the opposing _bong _vs striking it head on. To really see both of these requires playing the videos at the slowest speed available.



> He is also instructing a beginner in terms of what do so much slower, more breaks and less fluid than between two experienced practitioners. I posted because I thought it was a good teaching clip, not because it is the best example of the drill that is available. It is useful in that it is slow and it breaks down what is being shown quite well



This goes to the point I made previously about context.  We don't know the context and without that we can't even be sure what is being addressed in the first video.


----------



## ShortBridge

Juany118 said:


> ...
> This goes to the point I made previously about context.  We don't know the context and without that we can't even be sure what is being addressed in the first video.



This is a profound truth and something that we could all remember when debating/critiquing/criticizing any video. 

I was running a drill last night that seemingly violated some of our core training principles, but I was doing so because I was trying to get my students moving a particular way and develop some coordination between their hands and their feet. Posted on YouTube, it would be lambasted for being unrealistic and generally "not good", but no one except me knows what I was trying to achieve with that particular drill on this particular night...maybe my students do now...hopefully.


----------



## geezer

ShortBridge said:


> I'm not totally sure that I understand the question, if it's nuanced, but if it's not, then - on center.



I do not believe that is so In WSL-VT. As LFJ mentioned above, in that system, the wu is held a bit off-center and comes to center to meet and remove the incoming punch. This is felt to be more efficient and reliable than having the wu exactly on center and not knowing which side (palm or back of hand) that the attack will enter on. I'm sure LFJ can clarify.

In my YM-VT the wu _is_ held on center for reasons I can clearly explain later when I have a bit more time.


----------



## wckf92

Yes, wu is slightly off center. 
2nd form ideas being trained...etc.
Thx for the responses thus far


----------



## ShortBridge

wckf92 said:


> Yes, wu is slightly off center.
> 2nd form ideas being trained...etc.
> Thx for the responses thus far



I may just be using slightly different language to describe the same thing. 

I think that the concept of center in Si Lim Tao is very restrictive and (perhaps) to your point, it opens up a bit in Chum Kiu and further still as you continue on through the system.


----------



## wckf92

ShortBridge said:


> I may just be using slightly different language to describe the same thing.
> 
> I think that the concept of center in Si Lim Tao is very restrictive and (perhaps) to your point, it opens up a bit in Chum Kiu and further still as you continue on through the system.



Perhaps. Hard to say brother...er...cousin hahaha (we are both from same lineage).


----------



## Juany118

ShortBridge said:


> I may just be using slightly different language to describe the same thing.
> 
> I think that the concept of center in Si Lim Tao is very restrictive and (perhaps) to your point, it opens up a bit in Chum Kiu and further still as you continue on through the system.



I think that focus is important though.  While WC appears simple on the surface the confluence of structure, centerline, the nature of the various techniques (just three examples: bong, and tan aren't exactly things you just jump into doing then you get into things like bil sau that can be both an attack and a defense make it even more so.). The thing is the techniques rely not just on the structure of the arm itself but proper overall structure and adherence to the centerline.  I think as a consequence, as in many disciplines they hammer the core theory, then as you progress things open up bit by bit.  In this way you better understand the limits to which you can stretch the "envelope" that surrounds the discipline without tearing it.

I hope that makes sense.


----------



## ShortBridge

It does make sense.

Look at us having a constructive exchange of ideas!


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Second in the first video you posted the arm is being basically thrusted at the student in the upright position, basically striking with the forearm head on, where as, WSL makes it clear that you should be "following through" so to speak so the arm, albeit briefly, rides/slides up the opposing _bong _vs striking it head on. To really see both of these requires playing the videos at the slowest speed available.



It seems that rather than understand the drill through explanation from people who know the system, you're more interested in googling something to counter it for some reason.

If you search Youtube and find something you think looks different, you should ask, rather than present it as counter evidence to say something else you also don't understand is wrong.

Even at the slowest speed you are not being very observant.

In that video you also see both WSL and PB's fists point upward, but elbows drive forward, as in the OP video here. WSL then illustrates clearly how the punch is going forward, from the elbow, not hacking down on the arm like Joy's lineage.

If you are observant, you will see WSL is driving with the elbow, not leading with the fist.

I explained earlier the problem with leading with the fist and actually trying to hit them and force blocks. It is something I've experienced directly when people from other lineages have worked out with me. 

They try to punch straight at me, reaching over my _bong-sau_ which extends their arm and lifts their elbow up, losing hip-elbow connection and resulting in their arm getting displaced way out of position by my _bong-sau_. It just doesn't work as a drill anymore, and is not developing anything that way.

That's why I usually don't do _chi-sau_ or other drills with different lineages, except to reveal their errors to them. With different thinking, it ruins the exercise and renders it useless practice. Better to free-spar to compare.

After that, they then relearn it correctly.



> First, yes the _wu_ starts on the other side of the centerline BUT when it engages and _laps_ it is on the centerline.  Why?  Because the incoming strike should be on the centerline.



This is exactly what is happening in the OP video. Maybe you are not seeing it right due to camera angle, otherwise, what is the problem then?



> This goes to the point I made previously about context.  We don't know the context and without that we can't even be sure what is being addressed in the first video.



You can't, because you don't know the system. If you know the system, it is very clear what is going on. 

If you know the system, you can even tell in any video when errors are intentionally made to check for correct responses from the partner.

We are very familiar with these drills because we train the same system. So, better for you to not make assumptions and scour the internet for counter evidence, but instead to _listen_... if you are actually interested.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> This is felt to be more efficient and reliable than having the wu exactly on center and not knowing which side (palm or back of hand) that the attack will enter on. I'm sure LFJ can clarify.



Not only that, but if the attack comes on the center, for you to intercept it with say _paak_ or _taan_, or to wedge, or whatever you guys use, you have to first move your _wu_ to one side or the other and come back at center, or step to move yourself to one side or the other.

Both options, as I said, are not as direct or efficient as having a _wu_ in position ready to go, and there will likely be little to no time to decide and respond correctly.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> It seems that rather than understand the drill through explanation from people who know the system, you're more interested in googling something to counter it for some reason.
> 
> If you search Youtube and find something you think looks different, you should ask, rather than present it as counter evidence to say something else you also don't understand is wrong.
> 
> Even at the slowest speed you are not being very observant.
> 
> In that video you also see both WSL and PB's fists point upward, but elbows drive forward, as in the OP video here. WSL then illustrates clearly how the punch is going forward, from the elbow, not hacking down on the arm like Joy's lineage.
> 
> If you are observant, you will see WSL is driving with the elbow, not leading with the fist.
> 
> I explained earlier the problem with leading with the fist and actually trying to hit them and force blocks. It is something I've experienced directly when people from other lineages have worked out with me.
> 
> They try to punch straight at me, reaching over my _bong-sau_ which extends their arm and lifts their elbow up, losing hip-elbow connection and resulting in their arm getting displaced way out of position by my _bong-sau_. It just doesn't work as a drill anymore, and is not developing anything that way.
> 
> That's why I usually don't do _chi-sau_ or other drills with different lineages, except to reveal their errors to them. With different thinking, it ruins the exercise and renders it useless practice. Better to free-spar to compare.
> 
> After that, they then relearn it correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly what is happening in the OP video. Maybe you are not seeing it right due to camera angle, otherwise, what is the problem then?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't, because you don't know the system. If you know the system, it is very clear what is going on.
> 
> If you know the system, you can even tell in any video when errors are intentionally made to check for correct responses from the partner.
> 
> We are very familiar with these drills because we train the same system. So, better for you to not make assumptions and scour the internet for counter evidence, but instead to _listen_... if you are actually interested.



Really they point upwards?  I said they point upwards.  What I also said is that on slow motion you see that WSL has forward intent beyond the elbow, hence the "sliding" a little upon striking the bong, where as on the other one, also in slow motion, the forward intent ends at the elbow and doesn't follow through, the arm just "stops" without the follow through.  WSL even demonstrates that this bit of follow through bit, not just the slamming down bit, is important.  Also, if you say it's "because of the angle" that seems to indicate you are assuming it is because of the angle rather than allowing the video to speak for itself.  When the video is on slow motion you can actually start using multiple points to see that he is moving more than a couple times on the "wrong side" of the centerline.  In those cases I see an issue.  Not with the system but the specific encounter.  This is where context comes in.  Guy made the statement that the student is a novice.  Perhaps he is striking off the centerline and thus the wu is off the centerline?  Perhaps this is one of the reasons he started doing other things later in the video that were a-typical for the drill?  To try and dynamically ram home certain concepts without stopping the drill?

Regardless I think your response here speaks again to the arrogance you have in terms of a supposed superiority to WSLPB-VT with the... " except to reveal their errors to them" comment.  As such rather than looking at comments and questions as part of a discussion you automatically assume an attack and go into defense mode, and in a rather confrontational way vs a civil dialogue.

Finally, I am not ignorant of WSLVT, only of what you see as the dogmatically "true" WSLPB-VT.  Also it says something when someone makes claims based on "because I say so" and then simply dismiss verifiable videos and quotes of the person who their sub Lineage is named after.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Really they point upwards?  I said they point upwards.



You said the following, which is false:



Juany118 said:


> I see the instructor often crossing his own center line when he _laps_,   punching for the ceiling



There is neither crossing the center, nor punching for the ceiling.



> What I also said is that on slow motion you see that WSL has forward intent beyond the elbow, hence the "sliding" a little upon striking the bong, where as on the other one, also in slow motion, the forward intent ends at the elbow and doesn't follow through.  WSL even demonstrates that this bit of follow through bit, not just the slamming down bit, is important.



There is no slamming down bit except to show what is wrong. 

There is also no "sliding" except for when he stops to describe the punch as forward and not chopping down. The drill is performed in the same way as in the OP video here.



> Finally I think your response here speaks again to the arrogance you have in terms of a supposed superiority to WSLPB-VT with the... " except to reveal their errors to them" comment.



I described the error and undesirable result. There is nothing arrogant about showing errors and correcting them. That's how teaching/learning is done.



> In closing, you seem to be very defensive regarding your lineage, assuming an attack upon it, and a lack of understanding (I did study it for a time though not PB version).



I'm not being defensive. I'm offering clarification to your misunderstanding. 

If you are not listening, but trying hard instead to prove something that is false, that is a misguided attack. But I don't mind, I will still offer explanation for anyone reading who might actually be interested.

Also, I don't believe you've ever studied WSLVT, as you seem completely unfamiliar with it and all your info comes from googling things. What line did you learn under and how far did you get? 



> I am just doing what a court of law does with videos, I allow them to speak for themselves.  So I make observations and ask questions about one video.  My apologies also that I actually support my contentions with verifiable sources that counter your unsupported claims.



You haven't asked questions. You've made assertions about things you don't understand, and have tried to support those assertions with things found by googling which you also don't understand.

I can see why you are still a beat cop, and haven't made detective. Not very observant.


----------



## Lobo66

LFJ is sharing some very good information here about WSLVT and its training methods.  Anyone interested in this system should be thankful.

Too much focus on the fist in punching, over-extending the elbow and loosing connection with the body is an error.  It's an error in any form of striking.  If punching is to be an efficient movement, it needs to come from a connected and relaxed body.  I think we can all agree on that.  

As LFJ noted, one of the developmental aspects of this (laap sau) drill is training the connection between hip and elbow.  The focus is not on the hand and it is irrelevant that the hand points upward. The direction of force of the elbow is clearly toward the center of the opponent. 

When the forearm meets the bong of the training partner, the striking arm should not try to force its way through by reaching over the bong but should relax further - only then can it have the "flexibility" to effectively work on the timing aspect that is so essentiel to this drill.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> You said the following, which is false:
> 
> 
> 
> There is neither crossing the center, nor punching for the ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no slamming down bit except to show what is wrong.
> 
> There is also no "sliding" except for when he stops to describe the punch as forward and not chopping down. The drill is performed in the same way as in the OP video here.
> 
> 
> 
> I described the error and undesirable result. There is nothing arrogant about showing errors and correcting them. That's how teaching/learning is done.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not being defensive. I'm offering clarification to your misunderstanding.
> 
> If you are not listening, but trying hard instead to prove something that is false, that is a misguided attack. But I don't mind, I will still offer explanation for anyone reading who might actually be interested.
> 
> Also, I don't believe you've ever studied WSLVT, as you seem completely unfamiliar with it and all your info comes from googling things. What line did you learn under and how far did you get?
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't asked questions. You've made assertions about things you don't understand, and have tried to support those assertions with things found by googling which you also don't understand.
> 
> I can see why you are still a beat cop, and haven't made detective. Not very observant.



A I clarified it later because I realized it came off wrong (the bit about the instructor's wu being what doesn't come back to centerline but cherry picking is your forte'. Same with the slamming down bit, never said he did that, simply said that he wasn't following through with the forward intent of the elbow as WSL illustrated.

I did ask questions and made simple comments actually.  If you go back you will see me thank Lobo for his explanation of the fak as he clarified a more than possible (even probable) reason for it.  You would see me express uncertainty to Guy in a civil tone stating that until I can watch things in slow motion to clarify what I was seeing before commenting.  You would see me specifically stating that I am not making any comments about WSLPB-VT but simply observations of one, single video in isolation.  I then went to the trouble of finding another video with WSL to illustrate that I am not questioning your system, just one video.  Not getting into a debate of understanding you don't need understanding to say "hey they are talking about WSLPB-VT.  There is a guy doing something.  there is WSL with PB doing the same thing but with differences you can see at .25 speed.  What's up with that?"  Instead of acknowleding what amounts to two differences and offering a possibility, such as Guy's comment regarding the impact of a novice student, you simply deny the differences even exist and then say "don't understand." See the importance of video in regards to the later.

Also if you go back through other posts of mine, in response to the ad hominem at the end (blatant ad hominems are quite telling btw), you would see I was a Narcotics Investigator for sometime, I am even still a certified expert is such and Gang Investigations.  I CHOSE to return to patrol because I wanted to have a life again outside of the work place.  We all have priorities in life and mine on the tail end of my career is work/life balance.

PS, respond with whatever you want from here on out and call it a win.  I won't be able to see it anymore because there is no point as the entertainment value of your responses has worn thin.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Really they point upwards?  I said they point upwards.  What I also said is that on slow motion you see that WSL has forward intent beyond the elbow, hence the "sliding" a little upon striking the bong, where as on the other one, also in slow motion, the forward intent ends at the elbow and doesn't follow through, the arm just "stops" without the follow through.  WSL even demonstrates that this bit of follow through bit, not just the slamming down bit, is important.  Also, if you say it's "because of the angle" that seems to indicate you are assuming it is because of the angle rather than allowing the video to speak for itself.  When the video is on slow motion you can actually start using multiple points to see that he is moving more than a couple times on the "wrong side" of the centerline.  In those cases I see an issue.  Not with the system but the specific encounter.  This is where context comes in.  Guy made the statement that the student is a novice.  Perhaps he is striking off the centerline and thus the wu is off the centerline?  Perhaps this is one of the reasons he started doing other things later in the video that were a-typical for the drill?  To try and dynamically ram home certain concepts without stopping the drill?
> 
> Regardless I think your response here speaks again to the arrogance you have in terms of a supposed superiority to WSLPB-VT with the... " except to reveal their errors to them" comment.  As such rather than looking at comments and questions as part of a discussion you automatically assume an attack and go into defense mode, and in a rather confrontational way vs a civil dialogue.
> 
> Finally, I am not ignorant of WSLVT, only of what you see as the dogmatically "true" WSLPB-VT.  Also it says something when someone makes claims based on "because I say so" and then simply dismiss verifiable videos and quotes of the person who their sub Lineage is named after.



Why argue if you aren't interested? Why even post on the thread?

LFJ has been making some excellent posts analysing what is going on in these clips to an extent that I have not seen anyone else on the forum do. Instead of just saying thanks, you scour the internet looking for "evidence" which you can use to argue against something you didn't understand in the first place. There isn't anything to argue against because your points are based on misunderstanding 

In life as in VT it isn't possible to learn if you can't put aside ego. There is no reason for hubris here anyway- you practice a different system with a different way of doing things. What possible reason could you have for arguing detals of a drill in a system you don't practice or understand? You act like LFJ has offended you in some way and you bear a grudge, but you have only been on the forum for a few months? I just don't understand


----------



## Juany118

Lobo66 said:


> LFJ is sharing some very good information here about WSLVT and its training methods.  Anyone interested in this system should be thankful.
> 
> Too much focus on the fist in punching, over-extending the elbow and loosing connection with the body is an error.  It's an error in any form of striking.  If punching is to be an efficient movement, it needs to come from a connected and relaxed body.  I think we can all agree on that.
> 
> As LFJ noted, one of the developmental aspects of this (laap sau) drill is training the connection between hip and elbow.  The focus is not on the hand and it is irrelevant that the hand points upward. The direction of force of the elbow is clearly toward the center of the opponent.
> 
> When the forearm meets the bong of the training partner, the striking arm should not try to force its way through by reaching over the bong but should relax further - only then can it have the "flexibility" to effectively work on the timing aspect that is so essentiel to this drill.


I get that.  I am not disputing that at all either.  All I am doing is looking at one particular video.  I saw three things that made me scratch my head.  I noted them over the course of this discussion and one of them, the fak sau issue, you explained in a manner I found more than likely.  I still had the other two issues, the wu into pak and the movement of the strike.  So I waited until I could get to a PC and slow it down.  I then (due to my recollection of my WSL training, which was admittedly more than a few years ago so I wanted confirmation) went in search of a WSL video to compare.  So what did I see?

On video 1, it appears the wu remains on the opposite side when it encounters the punch and paks a few times, not everytime but a few.  Additionally the striking arm has forward intent at the elbow but there is no follow through upon striking the bong, it stops dead.

On the WSL video the wu moves to the centerline for the encounter everytime and, while it is basically missed unless slowed down, the forward intent involved in the punch "follows through" and thus you see the arm continue toward, sliding on PB's bong ever so slightly.

I don't see how the above contradicts the methodology LFJ posted because I was basically just saying "WSL is doing it right, why is it different over there?"

It could be, as has been clearly stated and inferred elsewhere, that the student was having an impact due to being a novice.  If, the student's punch is not along the centerline, then naturally your pak will not be either. Maybe that and the instructor's punch are different because he is move concerned with observing the student's bong and wu at that point.  This would be consistent with him feeding faks to the hand later actually.

Rather than talk about the possibilities of what was viewed however in a civil manner it was an immediate defensive and, at times, aggressive reaction.  It really boggles my mind since time and again I specifically stated I wasn't criticizing or making comments about the system itself, only one specific video.  Then even further by noting first only 3 and then after your explaining a probability for one of the three only 2.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I saw three things that made me scratch my head.  I noted them over the course of this discussion and one of them, the fak sau issue, you explained in a manner I found more than likely.



But you continued mentioning it with other things you find problematic, for some reason, but you are not telling us what you think is wrong with it.



> I still had the other two issues, the wu into pak and the movement of the strike.



It was _wu_ into _laap_ before. Now you have changed? What _wu_ into _paak_ are you talking about now?



> On video 1, it appears the wu remains on the opposite side when it encounters the punch and paks a few times, not everytime but a few.  Additionally the striking arm has forward intent at the elbow but there is no follow through upon striking the bong, it stops dead.
> 
> On the WSL video the wu moves to the centerline for the encounter everytime and, while it is basically missed unless slowed down, the forward intent involved in the punch "follows through" and thus you see the arm continue toward, sliding on PB's bong ever so slightly.



Don't know what you're talking about with the _wu_ and _paak_ on video 1 now. Can you point to a timestamp and be clear, please?

On the WSL video there is no follow through because it is an uncompleted punch, except for when he stops and shows the intent. There is no sliding on the _bong_ otherwise. It's the same as in video 1. You should not be trying to follow through and punch over the _bong_, for reasons previously explained.



> Rather than talk about the possibilities of what was viewed however in a civil manner it was an immediate defensive and, at times, aggressive reaction.



Are you saying I didn't actually provide detailed explanations to you?  Thanks.

The failed detective joke in the last post was just teasing because you aren't being very observant in this thread, despite my attempts to help you. I have not been aggressive with you at all. I guess by this point you would have told me to stop resisting and shot me already.


----------



## LFJ

guy b said:


> LFJ has been making some excellent posts analysing what is going on in these clips to an extent that I have not seen anyone else on the forum do.



Thanks. Ironic, the way I still get accused of not engaging in technical discussions by those who are regular posters yet contribute very little to the forum in the way of technical information.

My contributions to the forum go unappreciated by some who would rather have threads locked and me banned for expressing heretical views!


----------



## KPM

^^^^ You have been very selective about when and what you share in the past.  This particular thread is the exception, not the rule.  I commend you for your openness here.  Maybe it will last, maybe not.  But you still have to ask yourself why you got the reaction you did from Juany, when all he was doing was trying to participate in your technical thread.  Comments about being a beat cop or about whether or not he was going to shoot you for resisting were not at all necessary and another example of lack of tact or "Mo Duk" if you will.   On the other hand, Lobo66 manages to make points and share info without coming across as you and Guy do.  This is supposed to be a "friendly" forum, but with you and Guy it never seems to end up that way.  You have to ask yourself "why is that?"


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Comments about being a beat cop or about whether or not he was going to shoot you for resisting were not at all necessary and another example of lack of tact



That was a good humoured jibe. Juany was being more than a bit of a dope here and since he often refers to his police experience and using evidence to track down the truth as if it it is being hidden, then I would say a fair enough comment. People are extremely sensitive, for example Juany's inability to put ego aside and accept a description of what is being done in a different system that he doesn't understand; Joy's refusal to communicate with anyone (even Lobo who has barely if ever tried to speak to him) and request to close down the thread . All seems a very extreme reaction to someone disagreeing with you about wing chun or (in Joys case) just hoping for a little interaction.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> Thanks. Ironic, the way I still get accused of not engaging in technical discussions by those who are regular posters yet contribute very little to the forum in the way of technical information.
> 
> My contributions to the forum go unappreciated by some who would rather have threads locked and me banned for expressing heretical views!



Your technical descriptions and break downs are generally very good, and for anyone interested in finding out about WSL VT very useful. I think mostly what people like KPM are looking for is for you to assume they know it already and immediately give any detail you might have with no back and forward exchange of views which might expose lack of detailed knowledge on their part, or cause awkward disagreement. Basically I would say ego stops them participating openly in discussion- too scared of being wrong..a shame. The thing is though that everyone is wrong every single day of their lives, and the only way to get better is to accept you aren't perfect and get on with improving.


----------



## KPM

^^^^ That displays such a total lack of personal insight and what has gone on in this forum that I'm not even sure what to say anymore!


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> ^^^^ That displays such a total lack of personal insight and what has gone on in this forum that I'm not even sure what to say anymore!



Have a look in the mirror KPM


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You have been very selective about when and what you share in the past. This particular thread is the exception, not the rule.



I try to avoid feeding the obvious parasites.



> Comments about being a beat cop or about whether or not he was going to shoot you for resisting were not at all necessary and another example of lack of tact or "Mo Duk" if you will.



Lmao, jeezlouise!


----------



## wtxs

LFJ said:


> I can see why you are still a beat cop, and haven't made detective. Not very observant.



Really man? Or had you now reduced yourself to and behave like a boy?  Shame on you!


----------



## geezer

_


guy b said:



			That was* a good humoured jibe*. Juany was being more than a bit of a dope here and since he often refers to his police experience and using evidence to track down the truth as if it it is being hidden, then I would say a fair enough comment. *People are extremely sensitive,* for example Juany's inability to put ego aside and accept a description of what is being done in a different system that he doesn't understand; Joy's refusal to communicate with anyone (even Lobo who has barely if ever tried to speak to him) and request to close down the thread . All seems a very extreme reaction to someone disagreeing with you about wing chun or (in Joys case) just hoping for a little interaction.
		
Click to expand...

_
@ Guy B and LFJ:

Honestly, Guy, LFJ's comment to Juany about still being a beat cop did not come across as a good humoured jibe. It struck me as a rude and angry response that was insulting to both Juany, and to friends of mine who are cops. Beat cops.

Sure, maybe it wasn't meant that way, but KPM has a point. You and LFJ seem to make a lot of comments that most others find offensive. Now that may be, as you keep insisting, simply because _everybody else_ here has a problem (people are _so_ sensitive), or it may be because both you guys need to work on how you go about disagreeing with others. As to which is the problem here (your posts, or everybody else's sensitivities) I suggest you consider, as you so often do, which of the two is _more probable. _


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Not only that, but if the attack comes on the center, for you to intercept it with say _paak_ or _taan_, or to wedge, or whatever you guys use, you have to first move your _wu_ to one side or the other and come back at center, or step to move yourself to one side or the other.
> 
> Both options, as I said, are not as direct or efficient as having a _wu_ in position ready to go, and there will likely be little to no time to decide and respond correctly.



In the YM VT I train, we keep the _wu sau_ on-center and a good distance in front of the chest.  When an attack comes in, we meet it by _going forward on centerline_, with the intent to _hit_, not to block, using the wedging principle to simultaneously deflect the incoming attack. We only resort to tan, pack or bong if the punch obstructs our counterattack and we have no alternative. Keeping the wu-sau to one side may be helpful, but as you never know exactly how your opponent's punch will come in ...what angle, on center or slightly off-center, etc. we do not see keeping the wu of-center as a solution.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I try to avoid feeding the obvious parasites.




Perfect example of what I have been pointing out!


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Honestly, Guy, LFJ's comment to Juany about still being a beat cop did not come across as a good humoured jibe. It struck me as a rude and angry response that was insulting to both Juany, and to friends of mine who are cops. Beat cops.



Are you all this uptight offline? 

I assure you I'm not going to get angry on a web forum when someone doesn't understand what I'm saying.  I will just attempt to clarify things further.

It just struck me as odd how unobservant Juany has been in this thread when I remembered his profession. I actually respect his service, as I've told him in private months ago.

You all just need to lighten up. Nothing is so serious on here you need to get all whiny about it. M'kay?


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> In the YM VT I train, we keep the _wu sau_ on-center and a good distance in front of the chest.  When an attack comes in, we meet it by _going forward on centerline_, with the intent to _hit_, not to block, using the wedging principle to simultaneously deflect the incoming attack.



You are wedging with your _man-sau_ though, aren't you? Not your _wu-sau_. What does your _wu-sau_ have to do with it? 



> Keeping the wu-sau to one side may be helpful, but as you never know exactly how your opponent's punch will come in ...what angle, on center or slightly off-center, etc. we do not see keeping the wu of-center as a solution.



That's precisely why not to keep it on center. Keeping it on center reduces the area of space you can cover. To deal with anything past your _wu-sau_ will require you to move out to cover that space. 

If you lose your _man-sau_, and don't have time or room to move, your only option may then be to _paak _or in some other way chase the hand to block it as a last resort. You can't just attack.

If you cover more area you won't have to worry as much about something being on or slightly off center.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Perfect example of what I have been pointing out!



Burp


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Perfect example of what I have been pointing out!



Yeah. Great post! Appreciate your contribution to the thread so far! Same to wxyz or whatever.

If all you're gonna do is post to cry about something, better if you'd just stay quiet and pick up the crumbs you came for.


----------



## KPM

*You all just need to lighten up. Nothing is so serious on here you need to get all whiny about it. M'kay?

 If all you're gonna do is post to cry about something, better if you'd just stay quiet and pick up the crumbs you came for.
*
More examples of what I've been talking about!  Keep it up!  You're on a roll!


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> *You all just need to lighten up. Nothing is so serious on here you need to get all whiny about it. M'kay?
> 
> If all you're gonna do is post to cry about something, better if you'd just stay quiet and pick up the crumbs you came for.
> *
> More examples of what I've been talking about!  Keep it up!  You're on a roll!



Gobble


----------



## LFJ

Another great, content rich post by KPM!

Contributor of the Month, Nov. 2016?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Another great, content rich post by KPM!
> 
> Contributor of the Month, Nov. 2016?


 
And the hits just keep on coming!  You really don't see what I've been pointing out, do you?   You really wonder why people are hesitant to engage in any kind of technical discussions with you guys, despite what is now showing up on this thread?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You really don't see what I've been pointing out, do you?



You don't see that I. do. not. care.



> You really wonder why people are hesitant to engage in any kind of technical discussions with you guys, despite what is now showing up on this thread?



We were having a fine discussion on this thread without you. Of course, without you.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You don't see that I. do. not. care.
> 
> 
> 
> We were having a fine discussion on this thread without you. Of course, without you.




Yes, until you started to belittle Juany for asking questions?   You keep proving my point over and over.   It really is time you and Guy find a WSLVT-specific forum.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Yes, until you started to belittle Juany for asking questions?   You keep proving my point over and over.



He made false statements and apparently ignored or didn't understand replies.



> It really is time you and Guy find a WSLVT-specific forum.



You don't own the forum, pal. You can create your own and moderate it yourself.

I promise, I will not even sign up.


----------



## wtxs

LFJ said:


> Yeah. Great post! _*Appreciate your contribution*_ to the thread so far! _*Same to wxyz or whatever*_.
> 
> If all you're gonna do is post to cry about something, better if you'd just stay quiet and pick up the crumbs you came for.



If you meant to include me, thank you for the appreciation  and by the way ... I'm wtxs, hate to some one else getting the credit.

I must have to said that so far I have pick up only crumbs from your contribution.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> It really is time you and Guy find a WSLVT-specific forum.



I am happy here thanks KPM


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> And the hits just keep on coming!  You really don't see what I've been pointing out, do you?   You really wonder why people are hesitant to engage in any kind of technical discussions with you guys, despite what is now showing up on this thread?



Snap, gobble, burp


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> He made false statements and apparently ignored or didn't understand replies.



This is my last comment on the matter.

I made observations of a video nothing more or less.  I then posted videos of "the man" in that lineage to illustrate my point.  Nothing more nothing less.  I never contradicted or disagreed with anything you said about the method or theory of the art, only what I saw on single video and again I provided a point of comparison.

Videos speak for themselves.  You can't lie or make stuff up about what you see there, all you can do is interpret.  If people interpret videos in a different way then that is a point of discussion because there must be reasons.  Often these reasons are found in the context that was not captured by the video but in the conversations that occur pre and post "roll camera."

However no discussion occurred.  A reflexive defense and "you are wrong" occurred followed by ad hominem attacks.  Not regarding the art itself but regarding a single video which makes it all the more perplexing.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Videos speak for themselves.  You can't lie or make stuff up about what you see there, all you can do is interpret.



And misinterpret.



> If people interpret videos in a different way then that is a point of discussion because there must be reasons.



Like misinterpretation.  



> Often these reasons are found in the context that was not captured by the video but in the conversations that occur pre and post "roll camera."



That's why they were explained to you by people who understand the system.



> However no discussion occurred.  A reflexive defense and "you are wrong" occurred followed by ad hominem attacks.  Not regarding the art itself but regarding a single video which makes it all the more perplexing.



Interesting. So, I didn't actually provide pages of detailed, technical explanation for you?

Perplexing.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> This is my last comment on the matter.
> 
> I made observations of a video nothing more or less.  I then posted videos of "the man" in that lineage to illustrate my point.  Nothing more nothing less.  I never contradicted or disagreed with anything you said about the method or theory of the art, only what I saw on single video and again I provided a point of comparison.
> 
> Videos speak for themselves.  You can't lie or make stuff up about what you see there, all you can do is interpret.  If people interpret videos in a different way then that is a point of discussion because there must be reasons.  Often these reasons are found in the context that was not captured by the video but in the conversations that occur pre and post "roll camera."
> 
> However no discussion occurred.  A reflexive defense and "you are wrong" occurred followed by ad hominem attacks.  Not regarding the art itself but regarding a single video which makes it all the more perplexing.



Your analysis was both non specific (no times given) and changed as replies were given, making it look more like you had some kind of bias than simple discussion of what you saw. You also persisted with making the same accusations after explanations were supplied. Overall looked like you weren't really interested in the clips, more keen to make some kind of point.


----------



## guy b

Probably time for someone to make a new trolling ID


----------



## wtxs

guy b said:


> Probably time for someone to make a new trolling ID



What should we name it ... guy b. or LFJ?


----------



## guy b

How about abcd or Manuel?


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> You are wedging with your _man-sau_ though, aren't you? Not your _wu-sau_. What does your _wu-sau_ have to do with it?



In the VT I train, when man sau is removed, wu-sau becomes man-sau, and man sau becomes a punch. Everything flows forward. As for wedging, both man-sau and wu-sau are part of the wedge. Imagine an overhead vie looking down on man-wu-sau. The hands and arms make a wedge pattern. Add forward intent and you have the idea.

One more thing. Wu doesn't wait. Some of the EWTO guys might teach that. But my lineage skipped Kernspecht. I agree with Fernandez. If you play the passive game, you are screwed.

Hope that helps.


----------



## ShortBridge

You guys...


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> In the VT I train, when man sau is removed, wu-sau becomes man-sau, and man sau becomes a punch. Everything flows forward. As for wedging, both man-sau and wu-sau are part of the wedge. Imagine an overhead vie looking down on man-wu-sau. The hands and arms make a wedge pattern. Add forward intent and you have the idea.
> 
> One more thing. Wu doesn't wait. Some of the EWTO guys might teach that. But my lineage skipped Kernspecht. I agree with Fernandez. If you play the passive game, you are screwed.
> 
> Hope that helps.



I think most VT agree on the "flowing forward" bit, even if some may put a higher premium on others of flowing at angles to get to a flank/blind side.

We will do what you explain but we will also sometimes do something different.  Depending on the circumstance wu sau may become bil sau as the man sau becomes wu.  The idea being that the bil sau still wedges, can become a palm strike (our preferred hand strike against hard targets) as easily or, and here is the main reason, a lap sau more easily.  

My Sifu had an encounter on the job with a rather LARGE suspect and he simply couldn't "punch" his way out of it.  He still came out on top but by using "top control" techniques and attacking the legs. It's in a situation like this that being able to more rapidly lap sau can be useful.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> As for wedging, both man-sau and wu-sau are part of the wedge. Imagine an overhead vie looking down on man-wu-sau. The hands and arms make a wedge pattern. Add forward intent and you have the idea.



Right. So, you are forming an equilateral triangle, with your shoulders as the base and your arms as the two sides. As you go forward, your intention is to wedge things out along the outsides of either arm.

Your _wu-sau_ is held on the center line, essentially creating two right triangles from the center, as in the image below.







Your left _man-sau_ arm covers the space to the left of the center, and your right _wu-sau_ arm covers space to the right of the center, using the wedging principle.

Now, if your left _man-sau_ is taken momentarily out of action, being pulled down or suddenly knocked aside, you no longer have a left side of the triangle to cover that space. The area you are able to cover has just been reduced by a full half.

If simultaneously a punch is coming into you from an angle through the space left of the center line, and you don't have time or room to move your body, your _wu-sau_ cannot attack straight away. It would be too late. You'd be hit, or at best it would be a double knockout.

So your _wu-sau_ is left as the last line of defense. 

Now, to defend the attack coming via a line through your unguarded left area using the wedging principle, your _wu-sau_ must cross the center to get to the outside of that attack and come back into center to wedge it out.

But of course there will be no time for that.

So, the only option then will be for your _wu-sau_ to use the palm side of the hand to cross the center, chasing after the incoming strike to block it as a last resort.

In any case, the response would be indirect and inefficient, as you would be unable to attack straight away.

This is the problem with thinking you have to occupy center in order to control it.

You are actually reducing the area you can cover by half, and creating a situation for yourself where you have to cross center and block, likely leading to more flinching and flailing attempts to block further strikes while getting hit multiple times.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Right. So, you are forming an equilateral triangle, with your shoulders as the base and your arms as the two sides. As you go forward, your intention is to wedge things out along the outsides of either arm.
> 
> Your _wu-sau_ is held on the center line, essentially creating two right triangles from the center, as in the image below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your left _man-sau_ arm covers the space to the left of the center, and your right _wu-sau_ arm covers space to the right of the center, using the wedging principle.
> 
> Now, if your left _man-sau_ is taken momentarily out of action, being pulled down or suddenly knocked aside, you no longer have a left side of the triangle to cover that space. The area you are able to cover has just been reduced by a full half.
> 
> If simultaneously a punch is coming into you from an angle through the space left of the center line, and you don't have time or room to move your body, your _wu-sau_ cannot attack straight away. It would be too late. You'd be hit, or at best it would be a double knockout....



Thank you for posting the helpful geometric diagram above showing the isosceles triangle with the base line representing the transverse line from shoulder to shoulder and the apex being defined by the fingertips of your man-sau. This was exactly what I had in mind. As you point out the centerline splits the triangle into two right triangles, and in the VT I practice, we place our wu sau on this centerline, with the leading edge about half way toward the apex and the wrist trailing a bit behind ...say about a third of the way along the line.

Now imagine a line from that point connecting to the right end on the baseline creating a compressed triangle on the right side. That line denotes the position of the right forearm creating a smaller secondary triangle of protection on the right. And yes, it is too small or tight  an angle to offer much protection unless you factor in forward pressure. Remember, I said that _wu-sau never waits_.  It drives forward, creating a secondary wedge. When you encounter an obstacle (incoming punch, etc.) to the indoor gate, on the palm side, the wu becomes a centerline pak-sau. When the opposing force is taken on the back side of the hand, or outside gate, your response will be a wedging punch through the center, a tan to the outside, or a bong-sau across to the inside -- depending on the direction of the force received.

BTW, holding wu on center _works quite well_ for many VT/WC practitioners, so I think you overstate the case describing the centerline wu as "likely leading to  more flinching and flailing attempts to block further strikes while getting hit multiple times." Holding the wu a bit to the side may create a more predictable pak response, since in that case _most_ punches will enter on the palm side. This may up your percentages -- certainly WSL felt it worked for him. But either way, some punches will still come to the back of your wu, and you still have to be able to handle those.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> . But either way, some punches will still come to the back of your wu, and you still have to be able to handle those.



And this is where, in my Lineage, we will move to a bil sau defense.  Again still moving forward and still creating a wedge.  

The more detail I see the less difference I see (on the striking end.)


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> When you encounter an obstacle (incoming punch, etc.) to the indoor gate, on the palm side, the wu becomes a centerline pak-sau. When the opposing force is taken on the back side of the hand, or outside gate, your response will be a wedging punch through the center, a tan to the outside, or a bong-sau across to the inside -- depending on the direction of the force received.



I understand that. But this doesn't address the issue of the unguarded area of the left side right-triangle if your left _man-sau_ is momentarily taken out of action. Your only feasible response to avoid being hit, supposing there is no time or room to move yourself out of the way, is to reactively cross the center line with your _wu-sau_ to go after and block the incoming strike. It's defensive arm-chasing as a last resort, because you can't just counterpunch.



> Holding the wu a bit to the side may create a more predictable pak response, since in that case _most_ punches will enter on the palm side. This may up your percentages -- certainly WSL felt it worked for him. But either way, some punches will still come to the back of your wu, and you still have to be able to handle those.



I would not hold a right _wu-sau_ even further to the right of center. Now, instead of having reduced area you can cover by a full half by occupying center, this would reduce it even further. The response would still have to be the same as above, but running a longer distance to get across the center line and block the strike incoming via a line through the unguarded left area, originally defended by the _man-sau_.

In either case, you still have to worry about performing the correct defensive _paak_, _taan_, _bong_, or _biu_ options, rather than counterpunching as the basic idea.


----------



## geezer

@LFJ re post 129 above. I confess I have a hard time visualizing what you mean, especially considering the vagueness of what is implied by saying that
"the left man-sau is momentarily taken out of action". This could describe so many different scenarios. Has the opponent's punch slipped over or under it, or wedged past it to the inside or outside gate? Has it been _lap sau-_ed and yanked down or aside?

Different situations demand different responses, including remedial actions with the man-sau as well as the wu sau, as well as other possible actions with stepping, turning, etc. If you could describe a specific, common situation ...or even better post a video-clip, It would be easier to understand your point. As it is, I will accept you at your word that the slightly off-center wu-sau has served you well. I just wish I could more clearly understand your rationale. Maybe some of the others here can clarify?

What am I missing here???


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> @LFJ re post 129 above. I confess I have a hard time visualizing what you mean, especially considering the vagueness of what is implied by saying that
> "the left man-sau is momentarily taken out of action". This could describe so many different scenarios. Has the opponent's punch slipped over or under it, or wedged past it to the inside or outside gate? Has it been _lap sau-_ed and yanked down or aside?
> 
> Different situations demand different responses, including remedial actions with the man-sau as well as the wu sau. as well as other possible actions with stepping, turning, etc. If you could describe a specific, common situation, ...or even better post a video-clip, It would be easier to understand your point. As it is, I will accept you at your word that the slightly off-center wu-sau has served you well. I just wish I could more clearly understand your rationale. Maybe some of the others here can clarify?
> 
> What am I missing here???



LFG or Guy vague so they can assume superiority without producing evidence?


----------



## geezer

Juany118 said:


> LFG or Guy vague so they can assume superiority without producing evidence?



Nah, I don't think so this time. I'm open to input an making the guard-hand function more effectively. I'd give it a try anyway. That's how you learn right? I'd just like to get a clearer picture of what he's saying.


----------



## geezer

On the other hand _maybe_ LFJ isn't really interested in sharing, and is just trying to promote the superiority of the VT _he _trains. I don't care. Let's see what he says.


----------



## wckf92

Not speaking for LFJ...but, maybe he means if something is on the CL already (wu), and incoming attack is also on CL, your wu must first move to one side in order to be used(?)
Dunno...just spitballing


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> On the other hand _maybe_ LFJ isn't really interested in sharing, and is just trying to promote the superiority of the VT _he _trains. I don't care. Let's see what he says.


It is kinda hard to tell when we see the shenanigans on the SLT thread. /Shrug


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> What am I missing here???



Think built in automatic defence. Punch punch punch. Not react.


----------



## KPM

---I haven't followed this whole thread, but this part doesn't make sense to me:

*Now, if your left man-sau is taken momentarily out of action, being pulled down or suddenly knocked aside, you no longer have a left side of the triangle to cover that space. The area you are able to cover has just been reduced by a full half.

If simultaneously a punch is coming into you from an angle through the space left of the center line, and you don't have time or room to move your body, your wu-sau cannot attack straight away. It would be too late. You'd be hit, or at best it would be a double knockout.
*
-----I'm following this so far.  It makes sense.


*Now, to defend the attack coming via a line through your unguarded left area using the wedging principle, your *_*wu-sau*_* must cross the center to get to the outside of that attack and come back into center to wedge it out.
*
----The Wu Sau hand would simply have to move forward to deflect that punch coming into the space left of centerline.  Not sure if that is what is being said above or not.   Unless the guy is trying to punch you in the shoulder, his strike is going to be coming towards your centerline and so it would not be a huge stretch to catch it with the Wu.

*But of course there will be no time for that.
*
---Why would you say that?  The Wu is already there.  Small movement to meet the incoming punch*. 

So, the only option then will be for your wu-sau to use the palm side of the hand to cross the center, chasing after the incoming strike to block it as a last resort.

-*--And what do you suggest as an alternative?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> *Now, to defend the attack coming via a line through your unguarded left area using the wedging principle, your *_*wu-sau*_* must cross the center to get to the outside of that attack and come back into center to wedge it out.
> *
> ----The Wu Sau hand would simply have to move forward to deflect that punch coming into the space left of centerline.  Not sure if that is what is being said above or not.   Unless the guy is trying to punch you in the shoulder, his strike is going to be coming towards your centerline and so it would not be a huge stretch to catch it with the Wu.



LFJ is talking about using the wedging principle, as defined by Geezer 

*



			But of course there will be no time for that.
		
Click to expand...

*


> ---Why would you say that?  The Wu is already there.  Small movement to meet the incoming punch


*
*
Not a small movement using the wedging principle
*



			So, the only option then will be for your wu-sau to use the palm side of the hand to cross the center, chasing after the incoming strike to block it as a last resort.

-
		
Click to expand...

*


> --And what do you suggest as an alternative?



Lol. Maybe Leung Jan was a bit confused those last three years in Kulo village?


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ Thanks for sharing.     What's wrong?  Is Robin feeling a little lost without Batman around to supply the answers?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ Thanks for sharing.



You can't think of an alternative to palm side wu chasing contact with the incoming strike when in has all but been spelled out for you . I guess you aren't aware enough of how the YM VT system works to realise what this says about the "systems" you are involved with. Oh well. I think Geezer is almost there. It is fundamental. Odd that you don't have.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> You can't think of an alternative to palm side wu chasing contact with the incoming strike when in has all but been spelled out for you . I guess you aren't aware enough of how the YM VT system works to realise what this says about the "systems" you are involved with. Oh well. I think Geezer is almost there. It is fundamental. Odd that you don't have.


Regarding the alleged issue with @KPM and his description.  If something can come from right or left and one wishes to wedge on the offense, I fail to see how having the wu sau on center is not efficient.  Stuff happens in a fight.  One of the points of WC is efficiency.  If one needs to be prepared to react left or right at any given moment it seems more efficient to be on center.  Heck the term "centerline" comes to mind.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Regarding the alleged issue with @KPM and his description.  If something can come from right or left and one wishes to wedge on the offense, I fail to see how having the wu sau on center is not efficient.  Stuff happens in a fight.  One of the points of WC is efficiency.  If one needs to be prepared to react left or right at any given moment it seems more efficient to be on center.  Heck the term "centerline" comes to mind.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Try reading the thread before comment?


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Try reading the thread before comment?



How about you try not being a total  XXXXX!    And come on Robin, you could at least try and answer on your own until Batman shows up!


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> @LFJI confess I have a hard time visualizing what you mean, especially considering the vagueness of what is implied by saying that
> "the left man-sau is momentarily taken out of action". This could describe so many different scenarios.



I didn't think I was being vague at all. As I said in the initial post, perhaps the left _man-sau_ is pulled down or suddenly knocked aside, in such a way that remedial actions are not available to stop a simultaneous strike.



> Different situations demand different responses, including remedial actions with the man-sau as well as the wu sau, as well as other possible actions with stepping, turning, etc.



I also described the possibility of having no time or room to step, turn, or in some other way move yourself out of the line of attack before the strike lands.



> If you could describe a specific, common situation ...or even better post a video-clip, It would be easier to understand your point.



I will attempt to illustrate what I mean over the triangle posted previously.







The black mark on the center line represents your right _wu-sau_. (Maybe you hold it closer or further out along that line. Doesn't make a difference, as you can see.)

The left side of the triangle represents your left _man-sau_ that would originally be available to wedge or in some other way guard the space of the left facing right-triangle. 

If it is momentarily unavailable to wedge or perform remedial actions, the area left of the center line is then left unguarded. The area you can cover has been reduced by half. You only have your right _wu-sau_ covering the area right of center.

The red lines represent incoming attacks through the unguarded left area.

If your right _wu-sau_ continues forward to attack on the center line, it won't stop the incoming attacks. Best case scenario is a double knockout.

So, you are forced to use your right _wu-sau_ defensively. It can't attack straightaway.

There are two options. The first is represented by the green line, where the right _wu-sau_ must travel across the center line to get wide to the outside of the incoming attack lines, and then track back to center to wedge them out.

There will be no time for this.

So, the only option is for your right _wu-sau_ to cross center chasing the incoming strikes with a _paak-sau_ as a last resort to avoid being hit, represented in gray.

In either of these cases, the response is indirect and inefficient, reactively crossing center to block, since a counterpunch is unavailable, and will likely leave you in an even worse position to recover and defend rapidly fired subsequent attacks.

The problem here is having an unguarded area left of center by momentarily losing your left _man-sau _and occupying center with your right _wu-sau._

Occupying center does not help you, as can be seen.

Holding the _wu-sau_ further to the right of the center line only exacerbates the problem, leaving only the same options, but needing to travel a longer distance to achieve them.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> I didn't think I was being vague at all. As I said in the initial post, perhaps the left _man-sau_ is pulled down or suddenly knocked aside, in such a way that remedial actions are not available to stop a simultaneous strike.
> 
> 
> 
> I also described the possibility of having no time or room to step, turn, or in some other way move yourself out of the line of attack before the strike lands.
> 
> 
> 
> I will attempt to illustrate what I mean over the triangle posted previously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The black mark on the center line represents your right _wu-sau_. (Maybe you hold it closer or further out along that line. Doesn't make a difference, as you can see.)
> 
> The left side of the triangle represents your left _man-sau_ that would originally be available to wedge or in some other way guard the space of the left facing right-triangle.
> 
> If it is momentarily unavailable to wedge or perform remedial actions, the area left of the center line is then left unguarded. The area you can cover has been reduced by half. You only have your right _wu-sau_ covering the area right of center.
> 
> The red lines represent incoming attacks through the unguarded left area.
> 
> If your right _wu-sau_ continues forward to attack on the center line, it won't stop the incoming attacks. Best case scenario is a double knockout.
> 
> So, you are forced to use your right _wu-sau_ defensively. It can't attack straightaway.
> 
> There are two options. The first is represented by the green line, where the right _wu-sau_ must travel across the center line to get wide to the outside of the incoming attack lines, and then track back to center to wedge them out.
> 
> There will be no time for this.
> 
> So, the only option is for your right _wu-sau_ to cross center chasing the incoming strikes with a _paak-sau_ as a last resort to avoid being hit, represented in gray.
> 
> In either of these cases, the response is indirect and inefficient, reactively crossing center to block, since a counterpunch is unavailable, and will likely leave you in an even worse position to recover and defend rapidly fired subsequent attacks.
> 
> The problem here is having an unguarded area left of center by momentarily losing your left _man-sau _and occupying center with your right _wu-sau._
> 
> Occupying center does not help you, as can be seen.
> 
> Holding the _wu-sau_ further to the right of the center line only exacerbates the problem, leaving only the same options, but needing to travel a longer distance to achieve them.


The reason why nearly nothing will work is because the opponent has flank and has taken your center, you describe a situation where you are unable to move and every scenario you presented for counter is a defensive action based on chasing hands. It's a sucker punch type of scenario. Realistic chance of defending is very low. Best bet is to drop your chin, take the shot and if able start swinging. Though I'm sure to here some unrealistic, convoluted, wishful thinking responses as to how wrong I am.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> The reason why nearly nothing will work is because the opponent has flank and has taken your center,



No. The opponent may be standing directly in front of you, both centers face-to-face, you're occupying the center line with your _wu-sau_, but they are throwing a punch via a line through the unguarded left area where your _man-sau_ has been removed.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> No. The opponent may be standing directly in front of you, both centers face-to-face, you're occupying the center line with your _wu-sau_, but they are throwing a punch via a line through the unguarded left area where your _man-sau_ has been removed.


That means his right hand is engaged with your left Man Sau, leaving only a left punch. If your Wu Sau is center, the path is already obstructed.

Or, he cleared your left Man Sau with his left and then punched with his left. Your right Wu Sau should still be center. If it's a body shot, take it and punch with right hand. If it's a right punch, Wu Sau is already obstructing. In any case you should be constantly moving forward to negate his power. You're gonna get hit in a fight, learn how to take shots, so you're not always playing defense and chasing hands.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> That means his right hand is engaged with your left Man Sau, leaving only a left punch. If your Wu Sau is center, the path is already obstructed.
> 
> Or, he cleared your left Man Sau with his left and then punched with his left. Your right Wu Sau should still be center. If it's a body shot, take it and punch with right hand. If it's a right punch, Wu Sau is already obstructing. In any case you should be constantly moving forward to negate his power. You're gonna get hit in a fight, learn how to take shots, so you're not always playing defense and chasing hands.



You are not looking at the (red) attack lines coming through the left facing right-triangle, left of center.

Left or right punch doesn't matter.

Your right _wu-sau_ occupying the center line cannot obstruct those lines.

Moving forward will amplify his power as you walk right into the clean punch. Could be a knockout and game over.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> That means his right hand is engaged with your left Man Sau, leaving only a left punch. If your Wu Sau is center, the path is already obstructed.
> 
> Or, he cleared your left Man Sau with his left and then punched with his left. Your right Wu Sau should still be center. If it's a body shot, take it and punch with right hand. If it's a right punch, Wu Sau is already obstructing. In any case you should be constantly moving forward to negate his power. You're gonna get hit in a fight, learn how to take shots, so you're not always playing defense and chasing hands.



Sounds like you need to revisit SNT. A few basics missing. A bit concerning that your basic response is "take it on the chin"


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> You are not looking at the (red) attack lines coming through the left facing right-triangle, left of center.
> 
> Left or right punch doesn't matter.
> 
> Your right _wu-sau_ occupying the center line cannot obstruct those lines.
> 
> Moving forward will amplify his power as you walk right into the clean punch. Could be a knockout and game over.


Sounds like Atari Boxing.

If he is standing square shoulder to you his right hand cannot follow along those paths to strike unless he moved left prior to punching. If not it only leaves his left hand that is able to follow along those paths. In either scenario see previous post. 

This is the problem with the majority of Wing Chun practitioners, pontificating hypothetical situations based on theoretical puzzles lacking in detail that don't really have a realistic solution but look good on paper. 

Simplest solution, cover your center, expect to get hit and condition for it, don't chase hands, be aggressive, continue to press forward and hit. 

There is no perfect solution for any of these hypothetical "what if" situations. There are variables not accounted for and to try and factor them in, leads to more "what if" crap. 

Over analyzing and trying to use math and geometry to support offensive and defensive strategy is foolish.

Congratulations on replacing Hendrik.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> If he is standing square shoulder to you his right hand cannot follow along those paths to strike unless he moved left prior to punching.



Why not?

Maybe he is holding a boxing guard with his right arm to the side of center. The lines show a common striking path coming from the right into your center.

Or maybe he is not square shouldered but is throwing a rotating cross. It can take any of those lines. And again, a _wu-sau_ on the center cannot obstruct them.



> This is the problem with the majority of Wing Chun practitioners, pontificating hypothetical situations based on theoretical puzzles lacking in detail that don't really have a realistic solution but look good on paper.
> 
> Simplest solution, cover your center, expect to get hit and condition for it, don't chase hands, be aggressive, continue to press forward and hit.



This is a very simple and common situation. If your WC doesn't have a realistic solution, that's a problem.

If your only solution is to get hit and hope to be able to swing back, that's a problem. Hope is not a tactic.

Before you can come to a workable solution, you have to acknowledge the problem. If you don't recognize the problem with this obsession of occupying center, you won't ask, look for, or accept the solution.

If you are happy getting punched in the face as a basic tactic, carry on.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Why not?
> 
> Maybe he is holding a boxing guard with his right arm to the side of center. The lines show a common striking path coming from the right into your center.
> 
> Or maybe he is not square shouldered but is throwing a rotating cross. It can take any of those lines. And again, a _wu-sau_ on the center cannot obstruct them.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very simple and common situation. If your WC doesn't have a realistic solution, that's a problem.
> 
> If your only solution is to get hit and hope to be able to swing back, that's a problem. Hope is not a tactic.
> 
> Before you can come to a workable solution, you have to acknowledge the problem. If you don't recognize the problem with this obsession of occupying center, you won't ask, look for, or accept the solution.
> 
> If you are happy getting punched in the face as a basic tactic, carry on.


My mistake & I own up to it. In my last post I meant left, his left hand cannot follow along those lines without moving right. Regardless, the premise is still valid, he's taking an angle to flank your center. Move in or back away from his center and keep your center protected. And yes, learn to take a punch, in a fight your gonna get hit. Sometimes you'll have to compromise and take a hit to give one. I don't pretend that it's possible to bock everything coming in, neither do boxers.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> In my last post I meant left, his left hand cannot follow along those lines without moving right.



Depends on where his punch is initiating from, what type of guard and action. But that is beside the point. We're looking at those striking paths and your guard/response options to them. Left or right punch is irrelevant if they knock you out.



> Regardless, the premise is still valid, he's taking an angle to flank your center. Move in or back away from his center and keep your center protected.



None of those striking paths cross your center line. Your right _wu-sau_ on center isn't obstructing those paths and can't without crossing center to chase the arm. Are you not seeing this clearly illustrated?

Moving in is only going to run yourself into the punch, and there may not be time or room to move back before the punch lands.



> And yes, learn to take a punch, in a fight your gonna get hit. Sometimes you'll have to compromise and take a hit to give one. I don't pretend that it's possible to bock everything coming in, neither do boxers.



Nor do I, but it's a matter of percentages. I'd rather not go 50/50 or even less if I can help it.

_Wu-sau_ occupying center is very low percentage. Take the hit as a tactic and it might be the last one you take.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> Depends on where his punch is initiating from, what type of guard and action. But that is beside the point. We're looking at those striking paths and your guard/response options to them. Left or right punch is irrelevant if they knock you out.
> 
> None of those striking paths cross your center line. Your right _wu-sau_ on center isn't obstructing those paths and can't without crossing center to chase the arm. Are you not seeing this clearly illustrated?
> 
> Moving in is only going to run yourself into the punch, and there may not be time or room to move back before the punch lands.
> 
> Nor do I, but it's a matter of percentages. I'd rather not go 50/50 or even less if I can help it.
> 
> _Wu-sau_ occupying center is very low percentage. Take the hit as a tactic and it might be the last one you take.



It is really odd to see that the basic lessons of the first form are lacking. With such holes in understanding would think a less hostile and arrogant approach would be sensible.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Sounds like you need to revisit SNT. A few basics missing. A bit concerning that your basic response is "take it on the chin"



Susshhh Robin!  Batman has shown up, since you were unable to provide an answer.  So it seems your input is unnecessary.


----------



## KPM

*So, the only option is for your right wu-sau to cross center chasing the incoming strikes with a paak-sau as a last resort to avoid being hit, represented in gray.

In either of these cases, the response is indirect and inefficient, reactively crossing center to block, since a counterpunch is unavailable, and will likely leave you in an even worse position to recover and defend rapidly fired subsequent attacks.*

----Maybe slightly indirect, but not inefficient.  After all, that is one of the reasons for keeping the Wu Sau in that position....it acts as a backup when things don't go as planned.  You have painted a tough situation and then are arguing against the natural back-up response to that situation.  Keeping from getting hit when you are placed in a bad situation seems efficient to me compared to getting hit!    And remember....YOU are the one that said there is not time to step, pivot, or anything else.


*Occupying center does not help you, as can be seen.*

---Only a small movement of the that Wu Sau is required to cover the attack.  This could be done with a slight pivot as well, regardless of what you say.  Then from the Wu to Pak to your own strike in a split second.  His other hand is occupied with pushing your Man Sau hand down, so once you deflect that punch he should be open to your follow up strike.  That doesn't seem all that inefficient to me.

*Before you can come to a workable solution, you have to acknowledge the problem. If you don't recognize the problem with this obsession of occupying center, you won't ask, look for, or accept the solution.*

----And likewise, with this obsession of thinking that anything that doesn't punch in directly is "chasing hands" and not acknowledging that there may be situations when not punching directly is necessary, you close the door on lots of valid responses by calling them "inefficient."  And you haven't yet described what you would do in your theoretical scenario.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----Maybe slightly indirect, but not inefficient.  After all, that is one of the reasons for keeping the Wu Sau in that position....it acts as a backup when things don't go as planned.



It is inefficient because it is chasing the hand rather than counterpunching.



> You have painted a tough situation and then are arguing against the natural back-up response to that situation.



I'm arguing against _wu-sau_ occupying center and then having to chase the arm.



> Keeping from getting hit when you are placed in a bad situation seems efficient to me compared to getting hit!



Chasing the arm is inefficient compared to counterpunching.



> And remember....YOU are the one that said there is not time to step, pivot, or anything else.



Entirely possible, especially given the speed at which punches can be thrown compared to your reaction time and body movement.



> ---Only a small movement of the that Wu Sau is required to cover the attack.  This could be done with a slight pivot as well, regardless of what you say.  Then from the Wu to Pak to your own strike in a split second.  His other hand is occupied with pushing your Man Sau hand down, so once you deflect that punch he should be open to your follow up strike.  That doesn't seem all that inefficient to me.



Who says his other hand must be occupied? Your _man-sau_ could have been suddenly knocked aside and his second hand is coming fast behind the first punch.

You cross center chasing laterally after the first punch and his next punch cuts through your center.

It's just too low percentage and makes recovery very difficult, and if chasing the arm is your basic response, that's a problem.


----------



## Lobo66

Here is an example from MT.  The cross trap of the lead guard hand (when both are orthodox) :






The left hand is trapped and pulled down in a hooking action (much like WC's huen sau) leaving the right side open for attack.  The opponent is left with the less than desirable option of cross blocking with his right hand (much like the WC pak sau action).

In this situation, the hooking and pulling down of the left hand leaves the opponent momentarily unbalanced.  Furthermore, the follow-up punch is often coming in an arc, an overhand right for example.  It doesn't matter where your wu sau hand is, you just simply don't have many options.


----------



## KPM

---Ok.  I agree that you guys have described a difficult situation.   A hooking parry onto the Man Sau followed immediately with a punch from the same hand as Lobo just described would be very difficult for anyone to deal with.   But LFJ started this scenario out making it sound like another Wing Chun guy had simply stepped forward and Pak'd your Man Sau down as he punched you.   THAT is easy enough to deal with!

*Chasing the arm is inefficient compared to counterpunching.*

---But you've already said that counterpunching wasn't an option!

*Who says his other hand must be occupied? Your man-sau could have been suddenly knocked aside and his second hand is coming fast behind the first punch.*

---Ok.  Then if his other hand is no longer occupied with trapping yours downward, then your trapped hand is no longer occupied either and is free to respond......with....dare I say it.....a Hok Bong?  Or some other rising motion to cover the line?

---So given the scenario where a WSLVT guy has had someone close on him and has knocked his lead hand aside and pounding a combination of hard punches  (in other words the scenario you are describing).....what are you going to do?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> LFJ started this scenario out making it sound like another Wing Chun guy had simply stepped forward and Pak'd your Man Sau down as he punched you.   THAT is easy enough to deal with!



Yet, your response is still to chase the hand.



> Chasing the arm is inefficient compared to counterpunching.
> 
> ---But you've already said that counterpunching wasn't an option!



For someone occupying center in a WT-like guard.



> ---Ok.  Then if his other hand is no longer occupied with trapping yours downward, then your trapped hand is no longer occupied either and is free to respond......with....dare I say it.....a Hok Bong?  Or some other rising motion to cover the line?



How slow must their punch be for your arm to pop right back up and block it?

Even if they're slow enough and you're fast enough, your response is still to chase the arm. This time up instead of sideways.



> ---So given the scenario where a WSLVT guy has had someone close on him and has knocked his lead hand aside and pounding a combination of hard punches  (in other words the scenario you are describing).....what are you going to do?



Counterpunch. 

How, I have all but spelled out for you. Still hoping you can come to it yourself since it's basic first form thinking.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Sounds like Atari Boxing.
> 
> If he is standing square shoulder to you his right hand cannot follow along those paths to strike unless he moved left prior to punching. If not it only leaves his left hand that is able to follow along those paths. In either scenario see previous post.
> 
> This is the problem with the majority of Wing Chun practitioners, pontificating hypothetical situations based on theoretical puzzles lacking in detail that don't really have a realistic solution but look good on paper.
> 
> Simplest solution, cover your center, expect to get hit and condition for it, don't chase hands, be aggressive, continue to press forward and hit.
> 
> There is no perfect solution for any of these hypothetical "what if" situations. There are variables not accounted for and to try and factor them in, leads to more "what if" crap.
> 
> Over analyzing and trying to use math and geometry to support offensive and defensive strategy is foolish.
> 
> Congratulations on replacing Hendrik.


I think most people don't get a simple fact of real fights.  You can't cover everything at all times since blows can come from straight, left, right, up and yes down (hammer punch anyone). As such you protect your center, particularly the head, and be willing to take a hit elsewhere. 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> Counterpunch.
> 
> How, I have all but spelled out for you. Still hoping you can come to it yourself since it's basic first form thinking.



Without this basic thinking hand chasing is inevitable. No Liu sin dai da. No VT. What KPM and his various friends are advocating is either karate blocking away from the head which is suicidal, or advocating taking punches to make contact, which is very low percentage. All lacking what is one of the most basic and constantly reinforced lessons of SNT. The mind boggles.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Depends on where his punch is initiating from, what type of guard and action. But that is beside the point. We're looking at those striking paths and your guard/response options to them. Left or right punch is irrelevant if they knock you out.



Impossible for the opponents left to take the trajectory of those angles with his left hand unless he moves right. In which case if you throw a right punch he aligns himself to it.



LFJ said:


> None of those striking paths cross your center line. Your right _wu-sau_ on center isn't obstructing those paths and can't without crossing center to chase the arm. Are you not seeing this clearly illustrated?


If point of contact is at the apex, the Wu Sau is obstructing the path. If anywhere before, the power of the incoming strike can be significantly reduced by moving in. The closer the striking arm is to their body the more leverage it has and less concussive force.



LFJ said:


> Moving in is only going to run yourself into the punch, and there may not be time or room to move back before the punch lands.


Again the closer the arm is to the body the more leverage it possesses and less concussive force. Always keep your hands up and in center of body (in this case was was moved by opponent to clear a striking path, this still leaves one that is in position to obstruct if not already), Moving into the path will stifle their movement. Keep your chin tucked and raise your shoulder to protect side of head (this is remedial), you'll be alright. To try and use your hands to stop that punch is chasing hands.



LFJ said:


> Nor do I, but it's a matter of percentages. I'd rather not go 50/50 or even less if I can help it.



_Wu-sau_ occupying center is very low percentage. Take the hit as a tactic and it might be the last one you take.[/QUOTE]
Anything below his bridge (which moved your left Man Sau) is low percentage. This leave only the right Wu Sau which is already center. Any action with your hands to deal with the incoming blow is chasing hands. Best to shrug the shoulder to cover the left side of head which put your right Wu Sau to the left of your head, allowing to absorb the impact at minimal risk, especially if moving forward into the path of the strike, neutralizing its concussive force. Its a quick and simple cover, one use by boxers.

You are going to get hit in a fight, best to learn how to absorb them instead of focusing on low percentage and unrealistic hand chasing methods.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> It is inefficient because it is chasing the hand rather than counterpunching.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm arguing against _wu-sau_ occupying center and then having to chase the arm.
> 
> 
> 
> Chasing the arm is inefficient compared to counterpunching.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely possible, especially given the speed at which punches can be thrown compared to your reaction time and body movement.
> 
> 
> 
> Who says his other hand must be occupied? Your _man-sau_ could have been suddenly knocked aside and his second hand is coming fast behind the first punch.
> 
> You cross center chasing laterally after the first punch and his next punch cuts through your center.
> 
> It's just too low percentage and makes recovery very difficult, and if chasing the arm is your basic response, that's a problem.


Your right and I'm not suggesting any of this, see my response to Lobo.


----------



## Lobo66

There is no time for your Hok Bong or other actions with the left hand.  Your opponent has already pulled it down and is a beat ahead of you. 

You have three options  :  1) cross block with pak (not at all optimal but could save you from being KO'ed)
2) counter punch with the right hand.  Now, if your right hand is coming from the right or center then the best you can hope for is a simultaneous knock out.  However, if your right hand is coming from the left toward the opponent's center, AND THE OPPONENT HAS THROWN A STRAIGHT PUNCH, you can counter punch and defend together.  If it's a hooking punch, however, you'll still get clocked.
3) hope you have the chin to take the shot


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> A hooking parry onto the Man Sau followed immediately with a punch from the same hand as Lobo just described would be very difficult for anyone to deal with



Lobo's clips show opposite hands working together, one moving the arm, other punching through the gap. Can be done same side or opposite side. The point is that you are getting punched through the gap where your lead hand was, and your only option is then to chase the hand with a pak or punch at the same time with the other hand. Both terrible odds of suucess and very limited thinking. 



KPM said:


> But you've already said that counterpunching wasn't an option!



It isn't an option with hands held as described by Geezer



KPM said:


> Ok. Then if his other hand is no longer occupied with trapping yours downward, then your trapped hand is no longer occupied either and is free to respond......with....dare I say it.....a Hok Bong? Or some other rising motion to cover the line?



Have another look at Lobo's clip, then imagine the % chance of pulling that off. Plus still hand chasing.



KPM said:


> So given the scenario where a WSLVT guy has had someone close on him and has knocked his lead hand aside and pounding a combination of hard punches (in other words the scenario you are describing).....what are you going to do?



It's been described to you about 50 times already. You can't be this slow?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Impossible for the opponents left to take the trajectory of those angles with his left hand unless he moves right.



Not true.



> If point of contact is at the apex, the Wu Sau is obstructing the path.



Not true. Look at the diagram I drew to clearly illustrate it for you.



> If anywhere before, the power of the incoming strike can be significantly reduced by moving in. The closer the striking arm is to their body the more leverage it has and less concussive force.



Okay, walk into the punch by all means.



> Any action with your hands to deal with the incoming blow is chasing hands.



What have I been saying?


----------



## Nobody Important

Lobo66 said:


> Here is an example from MT.  The cross trap of the lead guard hand (when both are orthodox) :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left hand is trapped and pulled down in a hooking action (much like WC's huen sau) leaving the right side open for attack.  The opponent is left with the less than desirable option of cross blocking with his right hand (much like the WC pak sau action).
> 
> In this situation, the hooking and pulling down of the left hand leaves the opponent momentarily unbalanced.  Furthermore, the follow-up punch is often coming in an arc, an overhand right for example.  It doesn't matter where your wu sau hand is, you just simply don't have many options.


This is the exact scenario I am envisioning. IMO the best defense is a left shoulder shrug (which covers the left side of your head) your right hand will automatically occupy the dead space of the upper left quadrant. If you move in, its possible to slip his punch. If you do get hit it is often a glancing blow or its power can be significantly reduced by the top of your head/shoulder and Wu Sau taking the brunt of the impact. 

When I boxed I was taught to move in, slip, bob & weave. To try and use anything other than cover and body movement is arm chasing (unrealistic & low percentage) and leaves you wide open.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> This leave only the right Wu Sau which is already center. Any action with your hands to deal with the incoming blow is chasing hands.



Exactly!



Nobody Important said:


> Best to shrug the shoulder to cover the left side of head which put your right Wu Sau to the left of your head,



Lol, no. Think about what you can change in the above scenario before you resort to getting punched in the head as your first line response


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I think most people don't get a simple fact of real fights.  You can't cover everything at all times since blows can come from straight, left, right, up and yes down (hammer punch anyone). As such you protect your center, particularly the head, and be willing to take a hit elsewhere.



All I was talking about was a simple straight punch coming via a line through the unguarded area left of center... and how a right _wu-sau_ occupying center can't directly counterpunch without double knockout as the best-case result... and how chasing the arm across center is the only other option and creates bigger problems for yourself. All from obsession with occupying center.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> When I boxed I was taught to move in, slip, bob & weave. To try and use anything other than cover and body movement is arm chasing (unrealistic & low percentage) and leaves you wide open.



So you are saying that as soon as your hand gets slapped down your wing chun is staring into the abyss of failure and it is time to break out the boxing skills from back in the day? Why not just quit with the wing chun, seems a waste of your time?


----------



## Danny T

How about using footwork, body position, and weight distribution to move the line?


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Look at the diagram I drew to clearly illustrate it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, walk into the punch by all means.
> 
> 
> 
> What have I been saying?


How is it not true? The only possible way for a left hand to follow that trajectory to the target is by moving first to the right for alignment. It isn't rocket science. The left cannot come from the same origin point as the right unless it is moved to that same starting point. And yes, don't be afraid of getting hit, its inevitable. Learn to minimize the damage and counter.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> How is it not true? The only possible way for a left hand to follow that trajectory to the target is by moving first to the right for alignment. It isn't rocket science. The left cannot come from the same origin point as the right unless it is moved to that same starting point. And yes, don't be afraid of getting hit, its inevitable. Learn to minimize the damage and counter.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> So you are saying that as soon as your hand gets slapped down your wing chun is staring into the abyss of failure and it is time to break out the boxing skills from back in the day? Why not just quit with the wing chun, seems a waste of your time?


What I described is in my Wing Chun. Please by all means enlighten us as to how to correctly neutralize this attack. I'm willing to bet we'll get another 20 pages of avoidance and sarcasm instead of your answer.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Exactly!
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, no. Think about what you can change in the above scenario before you resort to getting punched in the head as your first line response


If you think you have time for anything other than a natural reaction to cover your crazy. Cover and counter, you see it in every boxing match for a reason.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> If you think you have time for anything other than a natural reaction to cover your crazy. Cover and counter, you see it in every boxing match.



This whole discussion is about the ineffectiveness of the WT-like guard occupying center.


----------



## LFJ

LFJ said:


> All I was talking about was a simple straight punch coming via a line through the unguarded area left of center...



And I'll add, the sad thing is that linear attacks should be easy for a WC/WT guy to handle. You train with it all the time. The hooks and loops and other style punches are where we usually see WC guys struggle.

Not so sure why everyone is already resorting to covering up and taking punches when dealing with what could be just a simple straight punch.

WC/WT can't even defend against WC?


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> And I'll add, the sad thing is that linear attacks should be easy for a WC/WT guy to handle. You train with it all the time. The hooks and loops and other style punches are where we usually see WC guys struggle.
> 
> Not so sure why everyone is already resorting to covering up and taking punches when dealing with what could be just a simple straight punch.
> 
> WC/WT can't even defend against WC?



Apparently not. A bit shocking really. Luckily Nobody Important's "wing chun" also contains boxing so should all be ok when the fists start to fly. I guess that's what happens when you fill those gaps.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> If you think you have time for anything other than a natural reaction to cover your crazy. Cover and counter, you see it in every boxing match for a reason.



VT is all about the natural thoughtless reaction of punch punch punch. Not cover, cringe, fall on the ground.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Without this basic thinking hand chasing is inevitable. No Liu sin dai da. No VT. What KPM and his various friends are advocating is either karate blocking away from the head which is suicidal, or advocating taking punches to make contact, which is very low percentage. All lacking what is one of the most basic and constantly reinforced lessons of SNT. The mind boggles.


I advocate taking the punch and counter punching. You can't chase the hand and win and you have to expect that a counter punch from an uncovered position will likely result in a straight up trade of being simultaneously punched while exposed. Minimize the potential damage by covering then countering. It's not as efficient but less risk involved than hoping you can beat the opponent by starting off one step behind. He has the upper hand because he initiated contact and you are reacting.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> How is it not true? The only possible way for a left hand to follow that trajectory to the target is by moving first to the right for alignment. It isn't rocket science. The left cannot come from the same origin point as the right unless it is moved to that same starting point. And yes, don't be afraid of getting hit, its inevitable. Learn to minimize the damage and counter.



Lol at extreme focus on a mini point because you don't know the answer. Lets assume the scenario is like the clips in Lobo's video; your forward left hand is slapped down by the left of your opponent while he smacks you in the face with his right. Assume it's a straight punch. You are either chasing hands or getting hit in the head.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> I advocate taking the punch and counter punching.





What if you take the punch and hit the floor?


----------



## LFJ

Taking the punch and counter punching:


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> I advocate taking the punch and counter punching. You can't chase the hand and win and you have to expect that a counter punch from an uncovered position will likely result in a straight up trade of being simultaneously punched while exposed. Minimize the potential damage by covering then countering. It's not as efficient but less risk involved than hoping you can beat the opponent by starting off one step behind. He has the upper hand because he initiated contact and you are reacting.



 ok, so no understanding of basic VT strategy covered in the first form.

This confirmation reinforces what the YKS and YC SNT clips showed- understanding in those mainland systems has been lost, if it was ever there. That's fine.

Unfortunately there are several charlatans pushing this kind of pseudo understanding and I do hope that you haven't been taken in by any of them. They do tend to hang around those particular wing chun derived systems.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Apparently not. A bit shocking really. Luckily Nobody Important's "wing chun" also contains boxing so should all be ok when the fists start to fly. I guess that's what happens when you fill those gaps.


Call it whatever you like, its quite obvious that you've never been in a fight. That diagram has the force coming in from the left flank while your left side is being neutralized. If you think you can simply counter punch with the right to negate the attack you're wrong. You have to rotate left across your body to hit your target, even if you're fast enough the best case scenario is trading simultaneous hits.

Cover then counter allows for position. You're going to get hit in a fight, learn to minimize the damage. There is no magic VT solution to keep this from happening.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> That diagram has the force coming in from the left flank while your left side is being neutralized. If you think you can simply counter punch with the right to negate the attack you're wrong. You have to rotate left across your body to hit your target, even if you're fast enough the best case scenario is trading simultaneous hits.



The opponent is standing directly in front of you in that diagram, triangle to triangle, so to say, and punching via a line left of your center. That doesn't mean he is standing to your left. Though, maybe he could be... doesn't make a difference.

Thought this was already explained several times?

The problem is the WT-like guard on center that fails.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Taking the punch and counter punching:














Pretty much what I described. Hands in center of body, cover (slipping while taking a glancing blow) and counter punch. Don't see what you're trying to argue against, it worked perfectly, knocking his opponent out.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> The opponent is standing directly in front of you in that diagram, triangle to triangle, so to say, and punching via a line left of your center. That doesn't mean he is standing to your left. Though, maybe he could be... doesn't make a difference.
> 
> Thought this was already explained several times?
> 
> The problem is the WT-like guard on center that fails.


Your red lines are clearly left oriented with my perspective of the bottom being the defender. For the top to strike from those angles with a left, they would first need to move right. The top clearly has flank (with his right) on the bottoms left side.

Now if your saying that the attacker is on the bottom and defender on top its a different story.

And for the record I don't use the Man Sau - Wu Sau guard, it's nearly worthless in my opinion. I use the Emergency Waist Bend & Iron Half Bridge, similar to a boxer using a Crab style guard.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Your red lines are clearly left oriented with my perspective of the bottom being the defender. For the top to strike from those angles with a left, they would first need to move right. The top clearly has flank (with his right) on the bottoms left side.



They are within the shoulder line of an opponent standing directly in front of you, triangle to triangle.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Pretty much what I described. Hands in center of body, cover (slipping while taking a glancing blow) and counter punch. Don't see what you're trying to argue against, it worked perfectly, knocking his opponent out.



That was a joke, right?


----------



## Nobody Important

Nobody Important said:


> Your red lines are clearly left oriented with my perspective of the bottom being the defender. For the top to strike from those angles with a left, they would first need to move right. The top clearly has flank (with his right) on the bottoms left side.
> 
> Now if your saying that the attacker is on the bottom and defender on top its a different story.





guy b said:


> Lol at extreme focus on a mini point because you don't know the answer. Lets assume the scenario is like the clips in Lobo's video; your forward left hand is slapped down by the left of your opponent while he smacks you in the face with his right. Assume it's a straight punch. You are either chasing hands or getting hit in the head.


Keep assuming "what if's".


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> That was a joke, right?


No, exactly as I was describing the absorb and counter. Your video was proof that it works. Didn't see your stand there and counter punch method in the video.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Keep assuming "what if's".



It's not a really big "what if". It's a simple straight punch when the lead arm is unavailable. Shouldn't cause such a huge problem for WC guys.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Your red lines are clearly left oriented with my perspective of the bottom being the defender. For the top to strike from those angles with a left, they would first need to move right. The top clearly has flank (with his right) on the bottoms left side.



Holy crap, it doesn't matter which hand he is punching you with, just that your lead hand is down and your wu on centre. For the sake of argument assume your lead left hand slapped down by his left, and he punches through the gap with his right.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> No, exactly as I was describing the absorb and counter. Your video was proof that it works. Didn't see your stand there and counter punch method in the video.



That guy didn't get hit. The one who was knocked out kept trying to counterpunch while in dreamland. That would be more like it, using your tactic.


----------



## LFJ

guy b said:


> Holy crap, it doesn't matter which hand he is punching you with, just that your lead hand is down and your wu on centre. For the sake of argument assume your lead left hand slapped down by his left, and he punches through the gap with his right.



If he could figure out how a left punch could do that we'd be getting somewhere.


----------



## Juany118

Lobo66 said:


> There is no time for your Hok Bong or other actions with the left hand.  Your opponent has already pulled it down and is a beat ahead of you.
> 
> You have three options  :  1) cross block with pak (not at all optimal but could save you from being KO'ed)
> 2) counter punch with the right hand.  Now, if your right hand is coming from the right or center then the best you can hope for is a simultaneous knock out.  However, if your right hand is coming from the left toward the opponent's center, AND THE OPPONENT HAS THROWN A STRAIGHT PUNCH, you can counter punch and defend together.  If it's a hooking punch, however, you'll still get clocked.
> 3) hope you have the chin to take the shot



First it seems that the hand is there for this one (or similar) scenarios, at the expense of all the other scenarios where the position appears to less than optimal. 

Second I am confused because, not you but others here, have constantly disparaged people who have given similar descriptions of other scenarios of "hand chasing" and this certainly appears to be just that.

All that said  @Danny T and @Nobody Important together have the point. 
A) (Nobody) you need to be willing to take a hit and in such a circumstance you will simply not have the time for the type of counter that is being suggested.  So steel yourself and cover. A chuen sau (with the below) can be an excellent cover and since you are simply covering it isn't hand chasing.

B) (Danny and Nobody) what you need to do is use (my slang follows) "body english" and footwork.  Iif it doesn't stop the strike it will at least bleed off some of the force of the blow and also change the line making the follow up strikes (the other hand is always coming) less effective as your opponent now has to change their line.  "B", is often overlooked.  All too often when foot work is spoken of it is through the lens of creating avenues of attack.

A simple relief or t-step is, more often than not, easier to execute than a counter because you can train it as part of the natural "flinch reflex".  When executing this kind of foot work it, even if you get hit, the change of angle and nature of the movement also bleeds off force.
-----------------

It's all well and good to have as your goal/general philosophy "always forward" but there are times, as the hypothetical scenario give here illustrates, where you in essence need to cover and reset because the other option is hand chasing which has a much lower % of success.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> That guy didn't get hit. The one who was knocked out kept trying to counterpunch while in dreamland. That would be more like it, using your tactic.


He took a glancing blow with a right while slipping then countered with a left. I provided the picture, look at it.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Holy crap, it doesn't matter which hand he is punching you with, just that your lead hand is down and your wu on centre. For the sake of argument assume your lead left hand slapped down by his left, and he punches through the gap with his right.





As you described. Now tell me how the attackers left strike can follow your red line trajectory without moving right.
If the attackers right hand is punching and the defenders left hand is neutralized, how is that not being flanked?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> As you described. Now tell me how the attackers left strike can follow your red line trajectory without moving right.
> If the attackers right hand is punching and the defenders left hand is neutralized, how is that not being flanked?



All that work and you still can't figure it out?


----------



## LFJ

So,

Pin Sun, YCW, TWC, and maybe others all agree on having to take the punch?

None of them can defend a simple straight line punch from this line if their lead arm is lost?


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> First it seems that the hand is there for this one (or similar) scenarios, at the expense of all the other scenarios where the position appears to less than optimal.
> 
> Second I am confused because, not you but others here, have constantly disparaged people who have given similar descriptions of other scenarios of "hand chasing" and this certainly appears to be just that.
> 
> All that said  @Danny T and @Nobody Important together have the point.
> A) (Nobody) you need to be willing to take a hit and in such a circumstance you will simply not have the time for the type of counter that is being suggested.  So steel yourself and cover. A chuen sau (with the below) can be an excellent cover and since you are simply covering it isn't hand chasing.
> 
> B) (Danny and Nobody) what you need to do is use (my slang follows) "body english" and footwork.  Iif it doesn't stop the strike it will at least bleed off some of the force of the blow and also change the line making the follow up strikes (the other hand is always coming) less effective as your opponent now has to change their line.  "B", is often overlooked.  All too often when foot work is spoken of it is through the lens of creating avenues of attack.
> 
> A simple relief or t-step is, more often than not, easier to execute than a counter because you can train it as part of the natural "flinch reflex".  When executing this kind of foot work it, even if you get hit, the change of angle and nature of the movement also bleeds off force.
> -----------------
> 
> It's all well and good to have as your goal/general philosophy "always forward" but there are times, as the hypothetical scenario give here illustrates, where you in essence need to cover and reset because the other option is hand chasing which has a much lower % of success.


They don't get it. They think that you can simply punch while compromised and it'll be OK, because on paper that is the most direct path to the opponent. Too bad it doesn't work like that in real life.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> All that work and you still can't figure it out?


Apparently you can't accept it because you're drunk on the Kool Aid you've been drinking. It's been spelled out for you and with pictures. But by all means brother, continue to argue to defend your broken narrative.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> That guy didn't get hit. The one who was knocked out kept trying to counterpunch while in dreamland. That would be more like it, using your tactic.


Look at it again. The guy using the tactic I described, knocks the other one out.Quit trying to spin it to argue a broken narrative.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> It's been spelled out for you and with pictures.



It's been spelled out for _you_! lmao

I had to use diagrams because you guys couldn't even visualize losing your lead arm and being attacked through the opening. 

Now you fiddle with the diagram trying to figure things out and still can't get it.

This is mainstream Wing Chun.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> If he could figure out how a left punch could do that we'd be getting somewhere.



We would be struggling towards a basic understanding of SNT. Again stunning that it is news to these guys. You have to wonder what on earth they are training?

Am I the victim of an elaborate hoax and none of these people actually train VT?


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> View attachment 20236
> As you described. Now tell me how the attackers left strike



For the sake of your poor brain we are assuming the attacker is hitting you with a right handed strike:



			
				guy b said:
			
		

> For the sake of argument assume your lead left hand slapped down by his left, and he punches through the gap with his right



You are advocating covering and taking the punch. Lol. Why?

We can do the thinking bit and wonder how he might hit you with his other hand later.



Nobody Important said:


> If the attackers right hand is punching and the defenders left hand is neutralized, how is that not being flanked?



The attacker can be facing you square on and hit you with his right hand when your lead left hand is out of the picture. You don't need to be flanked. Again lets not get ahead of ourselves and move too fast onto second form stuff. I think we need to get basic SNT understanding down first.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> It's been spelled out for _you_! lmao
> 
> I had to use diagrams because you guys couldn't even visualize losing your lead arm and being attacked through the opening.
> 
> Now you fiddle with the diagram trying to figure things out and still can't get it.
> 
> This is mainstream Wing Chun.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> We would be struggling towards a basic understanding of SNT. Again stunning that it is news to these guys. You have to wonder what on earth they are training?
> 
> Am I the victim of an elaborate hoax and none of these people actually train VT?


No, we just don't subscribe to your Fantasy Fu.


----------



## LFJ

omfg


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> This clearly shows all lines of attack coming from the right to flank the opponents left and not from a squared shoulder scenario.



Opponent probably not punching like a wing chun person?


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> omfg



I'm just surprised that someone so (un)important knows so little about the system they claim to be some kind of master of. It is baffling really 

I have been very lucky with so many well known people who turn out to be fakes.


----------



## guy b

No pictures visible. Possibly a good thing


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Opponent probably not punching like a wing chun person?



The punch itself (not talking about body structure, elbow position etc), regardless of the Martial Art, travels through space in the same manner. A round punch in an arch, a straight punch in a straight line.  Saying that "it's not a Wing Chun" punch makes no sense.


----------



## LFJ

guy b said:


> Opponent probably not punching like a wing chun person?



It could just as well be from a squared shoulder position too. The lines of attack are all within the shoulder line of the opponent (not shown), meaning the arms just need to make that angle of attack while facing the opponent directly. Doesn't require stepping out or anything.

Why do simple straight punches have to be so complicated?


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> It's been spelled out for _you_! lmao
> 
> I had to use diagrams because you guys couldn't even visualize losing your lead arm and being attacked through the opening.
> 
> Now you fiddle with the diagram trying to figure things out and still can't get it.
> 
> This is mainstream Wing Chun.





guy b said:


> For the sake of your poor brain we are assuming the attacker is hitting you with a right handed strike:
> 
> 
> 
> You are advocating covering and taking the punch. Lol. Why?
> 
> We can do the thinking bit and wonder how he might hit you with his other hand later.
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker can be facing you square on and hit you with his right hand when your lead left hand is out of the picture. You don't need to be flanked. Again lets not get ahead of ourselves and move too fast onto second form stuff. I think we need to get basic SNT understanding down first.







This is what you are explaining





This is what you provided. They are clearly not the same. One is square shouldered the other shows an attack to the flank. I think it disingenuous to provide one thing and describe another so that you can attempt to spring a "gotcha" moment. Either way, your taking a hit. In either scenario my point is still valid, whether you accept it or not. You're chances of getting hit are very high. Learn to take a punch by covering then counter. If you want to stand there and believe that you can land a strike before your opponent, who initiated the attack, good luck. I'm not buying what your selling.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> One is square shouldered the other shows an attack to the flank. I think it disingenuous to provide one thing and describe another so that you can attempt to spring a "gotcha" moment.



Those red attack lines are within the shoulder line of the opponent's triangle facing directly the defender's triangle.

The attacker's arms need only create that angle. It doesn't require stepping anywhere. 

If you can't even understand this much, we are wasting our time here.



> Either way, your taking a hit. In either scenario my point is still valid, whether you accept it or not. You're chances of getting hit are very high.



Yes. I agree. That was my entire point! And it is the fault of the WT guard occupying center! That's what the diagram is spelling out for you. It fails. Most WC fails in this common scenario against a straight punch, the type of punch they spend years working with!


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> We would be struggling towards a basic understanding of SNT. Again stunning that it is news to these guys. You have to wonder what on earth they are training?
> 
> Am I the victim of an elaborate hoax and none of these people actually train VT?



No it's just that A) we don't practice your particular style at the time and B) I can't speak for @Nobody Important but one of the reasons I moved on from WSLVT was because I, regrettably, find myself in real physical encounters and the instructor' only had controlled (read in schools) experience.

The basic theories being used to defend the wu position here, among them to counter an incoming strike, apply to almost all WC Lineages I am aware of (yes other than WSL and TWC academically) even if they use different methods.  However my real life experience, and that of my Sifu and his, show that there are times that theory simply will not work and so you have the opposing view being presented.

This is actually proving a point other people have made regarding TMA in general.  Without real pressure testing you don't have the practical experience to confirm, or deny, theories that look good on paper.

Finally the methods being broached to address the scenario given actually still hold to WC principles.  There are times where you may lose structure and position and there are forms and drills taught to recover it.  This then feeds into a tactic as old as warfare itself.  There are times when you know you are going to lose ground (structure/position).  When you know it is better to give up that ground in a controlled fashion so that both the "retreat" and the counter attack (recovery) are on your terms, otherwise the opponent gains the initiative.  To make an attack/counter with a much lower % of success is to court defeat


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> I'm just surprised that someone so (un)important knows so little about the system they claim to be some kind of master of. It is baffling really
> 
> I have been very lucky with so many well known people who turn out to be fakes.


That rich trollio! I've never made any claims of being anything. You and LFJ on the other hand, try to come off as individuals of superior intellect. Please by all means enlighten us with your vast wisdom


----------



## LFJ

@Juany118 

I do not believe for one second that you have ever studied WSLVT. 
You certainly have never expressed the faintest understanding of it.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> @Juany118
> 
> I do not believe for one second that you have ever studied WSLVT.
> You certainly have never expressed the faintest understanding of it.



Hmmm so an ad hominem attack instead of addressing the actual point being made.  That is telling.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> You and LFJ on the other hand, try to come off as individuals of superior intellect.



It's not that I'm trying any such thing. You just can't even understand a very simple diagram of a very simple scenario. This discussion can't even get off the ground unless you understand the premise of the argument.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Those red attack lines are within the shoulder line of the opponent's triangle facing directly the defender's triangle.
> 
> The attacker's arms need only create that angle. It doesn't require stepping anywhere.
> 
> If you can't even understand this much, we are wasting our time here.


Those lines don't look like they are to me, they look to be coming from an angle off the defenders left side, but if you say otherwise, OK. To me it isn't clearly illustrated.




LFJ said:


> Yes. I agree. That was my entire point! And it is the fault of the WT guard occupying center! That's what the diagram is spelling out for you. It fails. Most WC fails in this common scenario against a straight punch, the type of punch they spend years working with!


Then what the hell are you arguing about? You're going to get hit, it's inevitable. Learn how to take and absorb hits. Anything outside of "rolling" with it would require complete evasion or arm chasing, both unlikely to succeed.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> It's not that I'm trying any such thing. You just can't even understand a very simple diagram of a very simple scenario. This discussion can't even get off the ground unless you understand the premise of the argument.


Maybe because the diagram isn't quite as you described in the scenario. This is a better representation of what you were describing.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Those lines don't look like they are to me, they look to be coming from an angle off the defenders left side, but if you say otherwise, OK. To me it isn't clearly illustrated.



The line closest to the center line is almost parallel. How could that not clearly be throw from someone standing squared shoulder directly in front of you?



> Then what the hell are you arguing about? You're going to get hit, it's inevitable. Learn how to take and absorb hits. Anything outside of "rolling" with it would require complete evasion or arm chasing, both unlikely to succeed.



I'm arguing against the obsession of occupying center to control space, since obviously it fails.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Maybe because the diagram isn't quite as you described in the scenario. This is a better representation of what you were describing.



Whatever. It's not that complicated, man. You lose your lead arm and are attacked through the opening left of center with a straight line punch. Rear hand occupying center fails.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Hmmm so an ad hominem attack instead of addressing the actual point being made.  That is telling.



Your post was wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and you mention previous experience with WSLVT for no reason, also irrelevant and not believable based on your postings. Not ad hominem.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> The line closest to the center line is almost parallel. How could that not clearly be throw from someone standing squared shoulder directly in front of you?
> I'm arguing against the obsession of occupying center to control space, since obviously it fails.



My argument about those lines were applied to a left hand strike of the attacker, from a point center to the base of the triangle. I argued that a left hand couldn't follow the trajectory of those lines without moving right. Since it appears that you meant for the attacker to be aligned centrally and equally with the red lines there is no argument. The illustration just didn't reflect that position IMO.

I agree occupying center is dangerous, especially if the opponent is heavier and/or stronger than you. Its a strategy for disaster. 
Now that, that's clear it seems we have no argument other than the tactic of taking a hit. Having been in the ring, it'll be hard to convince me that you can get away from being hit with any high percentage, best to learn to deal with it.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Whatever. It's not that complicated, man. You lose your lead arm and are attacked through the opening left of center with a straight line punch. Rear hand occupying center fails.


No need to go all sour. Your diagram isn't a clear representation of the scenario you were laying out IMO. I'm hoping it was poor artistic skill rather than a deceitful attempt at entrapping us "broken dummies" so you could enlighten us.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> My argument about those lines were applied to a left hand strike of the attacker, from a point center to the base of the triangle. I argued that a left hand couldn't follow the trajectory of those lines without moving right. Since it appears that you meant for the attacker to be aligned centrally and equally with the red lines there is no argument. The illustration just didn't reflect that position IMO.



Those lines of attack can be taken by a left or right straight punch, whether the attacker is directly in front of the defender, or to the defender's left.

If you don't understand how, never mind. It's irrelevant. Just look at the attack lines, the defender's lead arm being gone, and rear arm not being able to defend while on center.



> I agree occupying center is dangerous, especially if the opponent is heavier and/or stronger than you. Its a strategy for disaster.



So your WC doesn't use the _man_/_wu_ hands on center as a guard?



> Now that, that's clear it seems we have no argument other than the tactic of taking a hit. Having been in the ring, it'll be hard to convince me that you can get away from being hit with any high percentage, best to learn to deal with it.



I'm not saying you will never get hit in a fight, but in this scenario the only reason you get hit is because the center guard fails.

WC should not fail like this against a simple straight punch.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Hmmm so an ad hominem attack instead of addressing the actual point being made.  That is telling.



It's the fact that you don't know anything about it that's the giveaway. It isn't any kind of an attack, more like an observation of reality. If you did study WSL VT then you didn't learn much, which sounds fishy since the bit you guys are struggling with is SNT


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Maybe because the diagram isn't quite as you described in the scenario. This is a better representation of what you were describing.



It's showing exactly the same thing. Again you are concentrating on debating minutiae because you haven't a clue how the system works.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> My argument about those lines were applied to a left hand strike of the attacker, from a point center to the base of the triangle. I argued that a left hand couldn't follow the trajectory of those lines without moving right. Since it appears that you meant for the attacker to be aligned centrally and equally with the red lines there is no argument. The illustration just didn't reflect that position IMO.



While this reveals a hilarious new depth of misunderstanding, I am happy that you finally have a scenario in your head which you can visualise and which reveals the problems with holding the hands on centre. Now run along and let Geezer puzzle it, there's a good chap.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Those lines of attack can be taken by a left or right straight punch, whether the attacker is directly in front of the defender, or to the defender's left.
> If you don't understand how, never mind. It's irrelevant. Just look at the attack lines, the defender's lead arm being gone, and rear arm not being able to defend while on center.


I understand that, I am saying that your poorly illustrated diagram makes it appear as if the strikes were coming from an angle too far right for a left had to accomplish. I thought we cleared that up.



LFJ said:


> So your WC doesn't use the _man_/_wu_ hands on center as a guard?


 No I use a position called "Emergency Waist Bend & Iron Half Bridge" its like a cross between a wrestling stance and what is known as crab style in western boxing.



LFJ said:


> I'm not saying you will never get hit in a fight, but in this scenario the only reason you get hit is because the center guard fails.WC should not fail like this against a simple straight punch.


Agree, so what are we arguing about?


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Now that, that's clear it seems we have no argument other than the tactic of taking a hit. Having been in the ring, it'll be hard to convince me that you can get away from being hit with any high percentage, best to learn to deal with it.



Taking a hit to maybe get a hit isn't a tactic, it is an admission of failure and inferior skill. Only idiots would actually train to do this. The aim is always not to get hit, even for the slowest plodders in boxing and MT

Now since we are talking VT, your plan to get hit in the face becomes even more staggering. It is one thing to accept the possibility that you will be hit, quite another to actually plan to get punched in the face. I am not sure whether to laugh or cry really


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> It's showing exactly the same thing. Again you are concentrating on debating minutiae because you haven't a clue how the system works.


While this has been a big misunderstanding, it was because the diagram isn't as clear as you're making it out to be. Mine clearly illustrates the point y'all were trying to make whereas the other IMO isn't as clear concerning the positions of the combatants in regards to the attack lines.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> No I use a position called "Emergency Waist Bend & Iron Half Bridge" its like a cross between a wrestling stance and what is known as crab style in western boxing



Sounds pretty much unrelated to VT


----------



## guy b

edit


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> No I use a position called "Emergency Waist Bend & Iron Half Bridge" its like a cross between a wrestling stance and what is known as crab style in western boxing.



Would you happen to have a picture/photo/diagram to illustrate this? I'm trying to picture it but I'm not familiar with crab style in boxing and only partially familiar with wrestling stances. Thx NI!


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Taking a hit to maybe get a hit isn't a tactic, it is an admission of failure and inferior skill. Only idiots would actually train to do this. The aim is always not to get hit, even for the slowest plodders in boxing and MT


No its a reality of fighting. Try to avoid getting hit, but understand that you will regardless how hard you try not to. So condition to take it, it's inevitable.



guy b said:


> Now since we are talking VT, your plan to get hit in the face becomes even more staggering. It is one thing to accept the possibility that you will be hit, quite another to actually plan to get punched in the face. I am not sure whether to laugh or cry really


 You're putting words in my mouth. I never said to willingly take a shot to the face, but you have to prepare for it. Learning how to cover and take a shot is vitally important. I have yet to see a fist fight where someone didn't get hit. It's the elephant in the room that many Wing Chun people seem to ignore, believing that their Chi Sau skill will keep it from happening. Cover, Press, Counter is a proven tactic. Use it or not, I could care less.


----------



## Nobody Important

wckf92 said:


> Would you happen to have a picture/photo/diagram to illustrate this? I'm trying to picture it but I'm not familiar with crab style in boxing and only partially familiar with wrestling stances. Thx NI!


Very similar to this, its for taking heavy pressure.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> I understand that, I am saying that your poorly illustrated diagram makes it appear as if the strikes were coming from an angle too far right for a left had to accomplish. I thought we cleared that up.



Not really. But never mind.



> No I use a position called "Emergency Waist Bend & Iron Half Bridge" its like a cross between a wrestling stance and what is known as crab style in western boxing.



I don't know what that means and the description sounds like two opposites.



> Agree, so what are we arguing about?



At this point, it seems we're arguing about taking a punch to the face as a last resort tactic.

I don't know why you were even joining this discussion and arguing any point if the center guard is not something you do. It has not cleared anything up, except to reveal other WC guys who use this guard agree on just taking the hit, which is sad because it's a straight punch, and if anything WC shouldn't fail against that so easily.


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> Very similar to this.



Ahhh...ok. That helps a lot. Thanks.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> It's not that I'm trying any such thing. You just can't even understand a very simple diagram of a very simple scenario. This discussion can't even get off the ground unless you understand the premise of the argument.



When his man sau hand is moved he just reverts to the funky crab guard boxing style he used to use when he was a fighter back in the day. I'm guessing it usually surprises the guys in the local wing chun class?


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> You're putting words in my mouth. I never said to willingly take a shot to the face



Yes you did:



Nobody Important said:


> it seems we have no argument other than the tactic of taking a hit



You continue:



> Learning how to cover and take a shot is vitally important.



Never said it wasn't. But planning to get hit in the face in the hope that you can cover well enough not to get KO'd is idiocy


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Sounds pretty much unrelated to VT


It's a Wing Chun position not found in Yip Man branch, so yeah, not VT.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> I don't know why you were even joining this discussion and arguing any point if the center guard is not something you do.



I hope Geezer comes back to discuss- at least he uses the hands on centre



> It has not cleared anything up, except to reveal other WC guys who use this guard agree on just taking the hit, which is sad because it's a straight punch, and if anything WC shouldn't fail against that so easily.



The strange thing is no desire to do any better. Really weird


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> It's a Wing Chun position not found in Yip Man branch, so yeah, not VT.



Then why join this discussion that has nothing to do with anything you do? Seems like the action of a drama queen


----------



## LFJ

guy b said:


> The strange thing is no desire to do any better. Really weird



Right. That is bizarre! 

Recognize the center guard fails and inevitably gets you hit, then... just accept it?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Yes you did:
> You continue:
> Never said it wasn't. But planning to get hit in the face in the hope that you can cover well enough not to get KO'd is idiocy


Where did I say take the shot to the face and counter? The only thing remotely close to any such suggestion was to hide the head with a shoulder shrug. If you do get hit instead of making him miss it's likely to be a glancing blow.

Here is an example while moving away






Receiving





Moving in with a bob and weave





Or if you prefer you could use Jung Bong






This is what I was referring to. Not willingly taking a face shot to give one.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Counterpunch.
> 
> How, I have all but spelled out for you. Still hoping you can come to it yourself since it's basic first form thinking.



But YOU defined the scenario already and said a counter-punch was not an option.  So just what kind of game are you playing here?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Then why join this discussion that has nothing to do with anything you do? Seems like the action of a drama queen


For the same reasons you join in on the discussions we non-WSLPB VT do. Quit whinging already.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> But YOU defined the scenario already and said a counter-punch was not an option.  So just what kind of game are you playing here?



Let me say it again... Not an option from the center guard à la WT.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Without this basic thinking hand chasing is inevitable. No Liu sin dai da. No VT. What KPM and his various friends are advocating is either karate blocking away from the head which is suicidal, or advocating taking punches to make contact, which is very low percentage. All lacking what is one of the most basic and constantly reinforced lessons of SNT. The mind boggles.




So let me get this straight.  YOU guys set up a difficult situation, define it right up front by saying counterpunching is not an option, criticize how others describe a response to keep from getting hit, and then say YOUR answer is to counterpunch!!!!  The mind certainly does boggle!!!!     And you wonder why no one wants to carry out a technical discussion with you two?????


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Right. That is bizarre!
> 
> Recognize the center guard fails and inevitably gets you hit, then... just accept it?


Well seeing as how I don't use this center guard and have no desire to do so, whats your point? IMO accept the fact that you're going to get hit. Work on absorbing punishment through good defensive position and counter.


----------



## KPM

Lobo66 said:


> There is no time for your Hok Bong or other actions with the left hand.  Your opponent has already pulled it down and is a beat ahead of you.
> 
> You have three options  :  1) cross block with pak (not at all optimal but could save you from being KO'ed)
> 2) counter punch with the right hand.  Now, if your right hand is coming from the right or center then the best you can hope for is a simultaneous knock out.  However, if your right hand is coming from the left toward the opponent's center, AND THE OPPONENT HAS THROWN A STRAIGHT PUNCH, you can counter punch and defend together.  If it's a hooking punch, however, you'll still get clocked.
> 3) hope you have the chin to take the shot



Since LJF defined the situation by saying there was no opportunity to counter punch....I guess I'll take option #1, which is what I described.  Had LFJ set up his theoretical scenario differently, then most definitely I would have counter-punched instead.  You can't define the rules and then change them to suit yourself.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Well seeing as how I don't use this center guard and have no desire to do so, whats your point?



More to KPM and Juany who have basically accepted the fact that they will have to chase arms and likely be hit, and aren't looking for a solution.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> So let me get this straight.  YOU guys set up a difficult situation, define it right up front by saying counterpunching is not an option, criticize how others describe a response to keep from getting hit, and then say YOUR answer is to counterpunch!!!!  The mind certainly does boggle!!!!     And you wonder why no one wants to carry out a technical discussion with you two?????


Because they wanted everyone to describe hand chasing scenarios in which they could spring a "gotcha" moment and claim that counter punching is the correct answer after all. Problem is it isn't, the counter punch will likely fail as well because you are already a step behind. Best thing to do IMO is simply to cover and absorb (if necessary) using body movement and then counter. This is the problem with "What If" scenarios, little things can be added or changed to support a narrative. In all reality, you will get hit when fighting, learn how to deal with it in a manner successful to you.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> So,
> 
> Pin Sun, YCW, TWC, and maybe others all agree on having to take the punch?
> 
> None of them can defend a simple straight line punch from this line if their lead arm is lost?



Heck, I'd just punch the guy straight away.  But I was told that wasn't an option.  Another case of "bait and switch" to suit your own purposes.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Because they wanted everyone to describe hand chasing scenarios in which they could spring a "gotcha" moment and claim that counter punching is the correct answer after all. Problem is it isn't, the counter punch will likely fail as well because you are already a step behind.



No "gotcha" about it. This started out with me kindly replying to Geezer about how the center guard fails. The diagram was made to illustrate the point about this guard.

You can do something other than the center guard. But if you use it, the only options are chasing arms and/or getting hit.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Let me say it again... Not an option from the center guard à la WT.



So what is it exactly you are arguing for?  Are you saying that holding the Wu back a bit off of the centerline makes a difference between being able to counter-punch and not being able to counter-punch?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Heck, I'd just punch the guy straight away.  But I was told that wasn't an option.  Another case of "bait and switch" to suit your own purposes.



The diagram clearly shows that a counterpunch from the center guard results in a double knockout as the best case.



> So what is it exactly you are arguing for? Are you saying that holding the Wu back a bit off of the centerline makes a difference between being able to counter-punch and not being able to counter-punch?



A center guard, or one slightly wide of center both have the same flaws and fail against the simple and common scenario I described.

My point was to illustrate that failure.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> No "gotcha" about it. This started out with me kindly replying to Geezer about how the center guard fails. The diagram was made to illustrate the point about this guard.
> 
> You can do something other than the center guard. But if you use it, the only options are chasing arms and/or getting hit.


You may not have intended for it to come across that way, but it did. On the other part, I agree.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Heck, I'd just punch the guy straight away.  But I was told that wasn't an option.  Another case of "bait and switch" to suit your own purposes.


 

How would this work, without being a 50:50 situation (at best)?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> The diagram clearly shows that a counterpunch from the center guard results in a double knockout as the best case.
> 
> 
> 
> A center guard, or one slightly wide of center both have the same flaws and fail against the simple and common scenario I described.
> 
> My point was to illustrate that failure.



So then what is your answer to your own scenario?  You said "counter punch" before but now just said you can't?  Its like "bait and switch" x2!!!


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> How would this work, without being a 50:50 situation (at best)?



Calm down Robin.  Batman has the floor.   But personally I'd step off the line WHILE punching.  But wait...is that against the rules for this scenario as well??


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Where did I say take the shot to the face and counter?



Here:



Nobody Important said:


> I advocate taking the punch and counter punching





Nobody Important said:


> Now that, that's clear it seems we have no argument other than the tactic of taking a hit. Having been in the ring, it'll be hard to convince me that you can get away from being hit with any high percentage, best to learn to deal with it.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So then what is your answer to your own scenario?  You said "counter punch" before but now just said you can't?  Its like "bait and switch" x2!!!



It's not using the failing center guard.

Given that you acknowledge it's failure, you should not just settle for a chasing _paak-sau _and likely taking a hit. 

You should be asking yourself how your setup could be changed so that when your lead arm is removed, your rear hand can immediately counterpunch without it being 50/50 at best, also assuming there's no time or room for footwork or much body movement before the punch would land.

I'm about to call it a night. So, I'll let you sit on that.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> So then what is your answer to your own scenario? You said "counter punch" before but now just said you can't? Its like "bait and switch" x2!!!



The answer is to punch, punch, punch..

For you non-wing-chun wing chun guys, after accepting a punch to the face and adopting the awesome crab guard I guess you are just going to have to go all Mayweather on him? Lets just hope this doesn't happen:


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Here:


Where does that say to the face? Yeah, I said take the shot, I stand by it, but nowhere did I say take it on the chin, in the face or otherwise. I said tuck the head into the shoulder (wu sau will naturally rise to protect face) and move in. At best you slip the punch, at worst he hit you on top of head or into your shoulder and wu hand, which will take the majority of power out of his punch. Kinda like this but even closer and chin more tucked


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Very similar to this, its for taking heavy pressure.



I will say I try to avoid that kind of "body english" and try to use foot work simply because of what I myself do.  If I am striking and the opponent leans back I stop striking and move for a take down as they already did half the work.

That said, for the purposes of illustration, the one photo (black male, blue trunks and gloves) is doing something similar to the cheun sau cover I was referring to, essentially threading your hand up into what is roughly a 90 degree angle from the elbow.  Another "cover" we will use if the foot work isn't possible, or you are a step behind so to speak, is imported from Kali (with the GM's permission), but it exists in other systems as well.  Raise your hand and place it next to your head roughly between the eyebrow and ear.  Worst case scenario it deflects a fair amount of force, best case scenario you actually strike the incoming hand/fist with your elbow doing damage.  The last is largely luck but when it happens it is funny to watch.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> The answer is to punch, punch, punch..
> 
> For you non-wing-chun wing chun guys, after accepting a punch to the face and adopting the awesome crab guard I guess you are just going to have to go all Mayweather on him? Lets just hope this doesn't happen:


It's cute that you think that by just punching you'll avoid getting hit back. My advice, learn how to take a punch, because you're gonna get hit.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> I will say I try to avoid that kind of "body english" and try to use foot work simply because of what I myself do.  If I am striking and the opponent leans back I stop striking and move for a take down as they already did half the work.
> 
> That said, for the purposes of illustration, the one photo (black male, blue trunks and gloves) is doing something similar to the cheun sau cover I was referring to, essentially threading your hand up into what is roughly a 90 degree angle from the elbow.  Another "cover" we will use if the foot work isn't possible, or you are a step behind so to speak, is imported from Kali (with the GM's permission), but it exists in other systems as well.  Raise your hand and place it next to your head roughly between the eyebrow and ear.  Worst case scenario it deflects a fair amount of force, best case scenario you actually strike the incoming hand/fist with your elbow doing damage.  The last is largely luck but when it happens it is funny to watch.


Just a FYI the position isn't static you constantly move to cover your gaps and generally are pressing forward to stymie his advance and take his power. This position allows for you to ride out a storm when someone gets position on you, but you have to be able to withstand the punishment. Often you'll see a quick transition into the clinch when the distance is closed. Its a position that leads well into grappling. The old adage "Wrestle a Boxer, Box a Wrestler".


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Where does that say to the face? Yeah, I said take the shot, I stand by it, but nowhere did I say take it on the chin, in the face or otherwise. I said tuck the head into the shoulder (wu sau will naturally rise to protect face) and move in. At best you slip the punch, at worst he hit you on top of head or into your shoulder and wu hand, which will take the majority of power out of his punch. Kinda like this but even closer and chin more tucked



Have a look at the picture I posted, shoulder roll gone wrong, Happens all the time. Planning to take a punch is not VT, pretty stupid, and an admission of failure. But do whatever floats your boat.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> It's cute that you think that by just punching you'll avoid getting hit back.



This is because you don't understand VT. Quite obvious now. 



Nobody Important said:


> learn how to take a punch



Learning to cover and how to minimise damage when being hit is sensible, but not something that anyone, let alone a wing chun person, should use as a first line tactic.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Just a FYI the position isn't static you constantly move to cover your gaps and generally are pressing forward to stymie his advance and take his power. This position allows for you to ride out a storm when someone gets position on you, but you have to be able to withstand the punishment. Often you'll see a quick transition into the clinch when the distance is closed. Its a position that leads well into grappling. The old adage "Wrestle a Boxer, Box a Wrestler".



Oh I am not saying I NEVER do it, I just try to avoid it if possible.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> It's cute that you think that by just punching you'll avoid getting hit back. My advice, learn how to take a punch, because you're gonna get hit.



I think this is a principle of WC born of exaggeration.  Yes a straight punch hits faster than a round and yes if you strike first it help.  The problem is, unless that strike puts the person down or, if striking an incoming blow, has more power behind it, you are still going to get hit.  The strike may miss the intended target and/or have less force behind it BUT you are still getting hit.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> This is because you don't understand VT. Quite obvious now.
> 
> 
> 
> Learning to cover and how to minimise damage when being hit is sensible, but not something that anyone, let alone a wing chun person, should use as a first line tactic.


I disagree, proper defense needs to be instilled from the start. Otherwise when your offense fails, as in this scenario, you're screwed. You have to understand that getting hit is a reality, preparing for it is a necessity. This is a big problem with Wing Chun in general. Too much emphasis on structure that isn't pressure tested and Chi Sau and ignoring how to receive force when the structure fails. All this because everyone is taught punch, punch, punch. It's the equivalent of flinging crap at the wall hoping something sticks. If you can give you have to be able to take, that's the reality of it.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> It's the fact that you don't know anything about it that's the giveaway. It isn't any kind of an attack, more like an observation of reality. If you did study WSL VT then you didn't learn much, which sounds fishy since the bit you guys are struggling with is SNT


First again, it didn't address any of the actual points I made about the dynamics of real fights vs theory.

Second, I actually haven't said anything about WSLVT as an art in this thread all I did was compare and contrast two different videos.  But let's say I did say "WSLVT does this" and was completely wrong.  That is irrelevant to my point and so your critique here is a strawman argument because again, it ignores the real dynamics of a fight, that relying on a counter strike in the scenario presented has a much high risk of failure than using cover and foot work when under that kind of pressure. 

One of the reasons I try to avoid talking about my WSLVT experience is two fold btw.  I know my experience is limited and memories may be unreliable because it has been years.  Lastly since it is not via PB I am fairly certain that if I mention something that PB doesn't state you would attack it anyway.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Have a look at the picture I posted, shoulder roll gone wrong, Happens all the time. Planning to take a punch is not VT, pretty stupid, and an admission of failure. But do whatever floats your boat.


And your tactic of punch can't go wrong? If you miss and he counters your back at square one, and done nothing to close the gap. Pretty stupid to ignore a realistic defensive tactic to believe that you can beat him to the punch after he's launched the attack. Your natural instinct is to cover, use it to your advantage. Quit hypnotizing "What If" situations, especially ones with low percentage pass rates simply because you're afraid of being hit. You're gonna get hit, sooner or later you'll have to deal with it. Besides it was clearly stated that a counter punch wasn't an option. So you're left with 2 options, get hit or get hit. Up to you on how hard you take it.


----------



## Lobo66

In VT vs VT :  Your partner attacks your position (left man, right wu) with a left jut and a right vertical punch.  He enters square on yet diagonally in an attempt to cut you off.  You, however, are no chump and the second you feel his jut against your left man sau hand you pull it back.   At the same time, your right wu sau hand (always having forward intention) is itself converted to a vertical punch which, together with your own "entering" footwork, cuts off your partners punch travelling from the "inside out" (concept tan sau).  You are thus able to defend and counter-attack simultaneously, not chasing his arm but attacking the center (his head).


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> I disagree, proper defense needs to be instilled from the start. Otherwise when your offense fails, as in this scenario, you're screwed. You have to understand that getting hit is a reality, preparing for it is a necessity. This is a big problem with Wing Chun in general. Too much emphasis on structure that isn't pressure tested and Chi Sau and ignoring how to receive force when the structure fails. All this because everyone is taught punch, punch, punch. It's the equivalent of flinging crap at the wall hoping something sticks. If you can give you have to be able to take, that's the reality of it.



I use a different analogy, a gun fight.  Someone trained only to rapid fire at your average indoor range, will have a major issue in a real gun fight outside.  If you aren't shooting first and your target is shooting back you need to focus not only on pulling the trigger but on getting to cover.  Even if it's dropping to the prone to use a curb find cover.


----------



## Juany118

Lobo66 said:


> In VT vs VT :  Your partner attacks your position (left man, right wu) with a left jut and a right vertical punch.  He enters square on yet diagonally in an attempt to cut you off.  You, however, are no chump and the second you feel his jut against your left man sau hand you pull it back.   At the same time, your right wu sau hand (always having forward intention) is itself converted to a vertical punch which, together with your own "entering" footwork, cuts off your partners punch travelling from the "inside out" (concept tan sau).  You are thus able to defend and counter-attack simultaneously, not chasing his arm but attacking the center (his head).



I think the first part is maybe part of the problem.  In large part I know I, and I think @Nobody Important, are talking about fighting in general.  There is an old saying "train like you fight." In real life conflicts the chances of running into another WC/VT practitioner are slim to none.  So if your methodology is focused on addressing VT v VT you may find yourself on the short end on the street.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> It's not using the failing center guard.
> 
> Given that you acknowledge it's failure, you should not just settle for a chasing _paak-sau _and likely taking a hit.
> 
> You should be asking yourself how your setup could be changed so that when your lead arm is removed, your rear hand can immediately counterpunch without it being 50/50 at best, also assuming there's no time or room for footwork or much body movement before the punch would land.
> 
> I'm about to call it a night. So, I'll let you sit on that.



I don't need to "sit on" anything.  You are not my teacher.  Just give direct responses.  You could have answered my question that I have asked twice now.  So again....you wonder why people hesitate to engage in a technical discussion with you?  I'm regretting already!   

So are you now saying you would have never have extended that Man Sau hand out where it could be trapped to begin with??   Just state your case and stop playing these games!   I wouldn't have myself.  In Pin Sun we don't use an extended "ready position" like that.  I was just trying to participate in the parameters of YOUR scenario. But it seems you keep changing it to suit yourself.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> You have to understand that getting hit is a reality, preparing for it is a necessity



I agree, but this isn't the same thing as taking punches intentionally. And doing so not VT



Nobody Important said:


> All this because everyone is taught punch, punch, punch



Given that you don't understand how it works, probably better not to have an opinion


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> I think this is a principle of WC born of exaggeration. Yes a straight punch hits faster than a round and yes if you strike first it help. The problem is, unless that strike puts the person down or, if striking an incoming blow, has more power behind it, you are still going to get hit.



You don't know what is being discussed


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> You are not my teacher. Just give direct responses.



Isn't this a direct contradiction?

You want answers for nothing. You are correct, your teacher is someone else and they don't have some very basic details of the VT system. Something for you to consider if you are interested in the system. If not then don't worry.  



KPM said:


> So are you now saying you would have never have extended that Man Sau hand out where it could be trapped to begin with?? Just state your case and stop playing these games!



Relax. It is a completely different system. Nothing to do with what you do. Why not just forget about it?


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> You don't know what is being discussed



Heck, I don't know what is being discussed either!  LFJ is not giving straight answers.  It seems the original scenario that started the discussion in this direction keeps changing.   Looks like LFJ designed a scenario that had no good answer and then you both sit back and laugh at people that try to give an answer, all the while not saying what you would do yourself.  But the answer to that question seems to be..."don't be in that situation to begin with!"  Which is a horribly disingenuous way to drive a discussion!   So is it any wonder anyone would lose track of what is being discussed??


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> I actually haven't said anything about WSLVT as an art



If you had studied the system, you would know these basics. So either you aren't telling the truth or somehow you missed the fundamentals. Confusing.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:
			
		

> Heck, I don't know what is being discussed either! LFJ is not giving straight answers. It seems the original scenario that started the discussion in this direction keeps changing.



LFJ was describing problems with the WT guard on centre. Since you and Nobody don't do anything similar not really sure what your interest is?



KPM said:


> Looks like LFJ designed a scenario that had no good answer and then you both sit back and laugh at people that try to give an answer, all the while not saying what you would do yourself.



You three jumped on the thread and strated trolling. If you don't use man wu then why are you even here? Conversation was going fine without you.

The answer is very simple and has been spelled out already. Unfortunately everyone too busy talking about how they prefer to get punched in the face and adopt silly boxing guards to even notice. 

Since you all now realise you made a big fuss about nothing, how about leaving the thread to people who actually might be interested instead?


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Lastly since it is not via PB I am fairly certain that if I mention something that PB doesn't state you would attack it anyway.



Basic ideas are basic. Gary Lam has them too I am sure.


----------



## KPM

*You three jumped on the thread and strated trolling. If you don't use man wu then why are you even here? Conversation was going fine without you.*

---So now trying to participate and make sense out of one of your technical discussions....at your invitation....is considered "trolling"???


* how about leaving the thread to people who actually might be interested instead?*

---That's probably the best thing you've written in a LONG time.  Although, I can't see why anyone would be interested in these long convoluted discussions with you two that always seem to go nowhere except down the rabbit hole.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> I agree, but this isn't the same thing as taking punches intentionally. And doing so not VT. Given that you don't understand how it works, probably better not to have an opinion


Here is the scenario:
Now, if *your left man-sau is taken momentarily out of action*, being pulled down or suddenly knocked aside, you no longer have a left side of the triangle to cover that space. The area you are able to cover has just been reduced by a full half.

If simultaneously a punch is coming into you from an angle through the space left of the center line, and *you don't have time or room to move your body*, your *wu-sau cannot attack straight away*. It would be too late. You'd be hit, or at best it would be a double knockout.

I agreed. Simply trying to defend by punching isn't going to bode well because you're exposed. Just as was said here "your _wu-sau_ cannot attack straight away. It would be too late. You'd be hit, or at best it would be a double knockout." This leaves you with only one viable option, cover, take the hit and then counter. Nowhere did I say that this was a tactic to be wantonly used all the time as a first line of defense. It was specific to this scenario and I supported my argument with examples of use. When you are unable to move your body, your left hand is immobilized and you cannot counter attack with the right, there is no magic formula. You are going to get hit, learn how to take one. You have no choice but to take the hit. The scenario is one that sets you up to fail from every angle it is pursued.

Now since I obviously fail to see how VT (or any method) can overcome this situation unscathed, please enlighten me as to the "Correct" answer.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Just as was said here "your _wu-sau_ cannot attack straight away. It would be too late. You'd be hit, or at best it would be a double knockout." This leaves you with only one viable option, cover, take the hit and then counter.



For WT hands on centre this is the case



Nobody Important said:


> You are going to get hit, learn how to take one. You have no choice but to take the hit. The scenario is one that sets you up to fail from every angle it is pursued



That's why not to do as WT does



Nobody Important said:


> Now since I obviously fail to see how VT (or any method) can overcome this situation unscathed, please enlighten me as to the "Correct" answer.



It's right here on the thread. Maybe try listening instead of talking?

Where is your wu hand?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> So now trying to participate and make sense out of one of your technical discussions....at your invitation....is considered "trolling"???



Trolling is trolling.



> I can't see why anyone would be interested in these long convoluted discussions with you two that always seem to go nowhere except down the rabbit hole.



Odd then how you seem to feature so heavily in any such discussion?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> It's right here on the thread. Maybe try listening instead of talking?


Really? You cant move your body, that means no knees or kicks, the left hand is disabled and you have no time to launch the right. Any attempt with either hand to stop the incoming strike is hand chasing and will fail, counter punching with the right is a step behind (best case scenario) is to achieve a simultaneous strike. The only option is cover. Pretend you hold some secret that only WSLPBVT people who received the true knowledge are privy too. I don't really care. If your method is based on contemplating riddles and hypothetical scenarios, I don't want anything to do with it.


----------



## KPM

^^^^ Robin has to wait for Batman to reemerge tomorrow to tell him the answer.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Odd then how you seem to feature so heavily in any such discussion?



Yeah, odd that I can carry on discussions with others just fine.  Odd that others here in the forum carry on discussions just fine.  But when any discussion involves one of you two, it goes down the rabbit hole rather quickly.  Indeed odd!


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Yeah, odd that I can carry on discussions with others just fine.  Odd that others here in the forum carry on discussions just fine.  But when any discussion involves one of you two, it goes down the rabbit hole rather quickly.  Indeed odd!





			
				KPM said:
			
		

> I can't see why anyone would be interested in these long convoluted discussions with you two that always seem to go nowhere except down the rabbit hole



Why are you posting in a discussion you don't find interesting?


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> you have no time to launch the right



Why is that?


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> *You three jumped on the thread and strated trolling. If you don't use man wu then why are you even here? Conversation was going fine without you.*
> 
> ---So now trying to participate and make sense out of one of your technical discussions....at your invitation....is considered "trolling"???
> 
> 
> * how about leaving the thread to people who actually might be interested instead?*
> 
> ---That's probably the best thing you've written in a LONG time.  Although, I can't see why anyone would be interested in these long convoluted discussions with you two that always seem to go nowhere except down the rabbit hole.



Thing is I actually am interested, the thing is I was never taught that being interested meant that one can't look at things critically and voice an observation/opinion.  No one here has said "WSLVT is inferior.". People have pointed out differences from other Lineages, have made simple observations of a video, have asked questions and then given opinions and alternatives to a singular methodology etc.  Conversations like that only happen when people are interested


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> I don't really care. If your method is based on contemplating riddles and hypothetical scenarios, I don't want anything to do with it.



What a drama queen. If you are intersted then try listening. If not interested then simply stop worrying about it.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Thing is I actually am interested, the thing is I was never taught that being interested meant that one can't look at things critically and voice an observation/opinion



There is a huge difference between asking questions and being open to answers, and being on a strange one sided mission against a particular approach over several threads. Hard to see why you would join the forum and immediately start doing this. Also difficult to believe your claims about learning the WSL method when this particular topic should have been one of the first things you learned.

It just doesn't ring true I'm afraid. If you are interested then it is up to you to show it.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> For WT hands on centre this is the case
> 
> 
> 
> That's why not to do as WT does
> 
> 
> 
> It's right here on the thread. Maybe try listening instead of talking?
> 
> Where is your wu hand?


We've already discussed how I don't use Man Sau-Wu Sau. I agreed with LFJ on his deduction that this method gets you hit. In that exact scenario, if using Man Sau-Wu Sau, my suggestion was brace for the hit, no stopping it. However, it still doesn't solve how WSLPB VT would defend it from that position. How would you if you were in the exact scenario using Man Sau-Wu Sau as described?


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> How would you respond if you were in that exact scenario using Man Sau-Wu Sau as described? That's the question you've been ignoring.



We don't use it as described, that is why the situation was framed to show the problems with using as described.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> What a drama queen. If you are intersted then try listening. If not interested then simply stop worrying about it.


You're the one arguing and not listening. LFJ and I came to an agreement, at least I did with him. I'm not looking for vindication or anything. You are the one arguing my conclusion to the hypothetical situation that was given. It's get hit, my response, take it. It cant be avoided. I'm throwing the question back to you. Answer or don't.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> We don't use it as described, that is why the situation was framed to show the problems with using as described.


I agree, but you've been arguing with me on the premise that I was using that and if I were the answer is cover, cause you're going to get hit. If you were to be in the exact scenario using Man Sau -Wu Sau what is the response?


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> you've been arguing with me on the premise that I was using that and if I were the answer is cover,



It took you pages and pages to realise that it was a situation for Geezer. Since you don't hold your hands that way then no reason to even be in the discussion. Not sure why still here?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> It took you pages and pages to realise that it was a situation for Geezer. Since you don't hold your hands that way then no reason to even be in the discussion. Not sure why still here?


Whatever, thanks.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Whatever, thanks.


What's kinda frustrating is that it is still applicable, here is the line of logic...

1.  Geezer was talking about using man sau-wu sau for wedging actions but the wu sau positions were different.
>>>>
2. In response to Geezer's mention of wu sau placement the scenario we have been discussing was raised.
>>>>
3. A potential weakness in trying to address that particular scenario via the proposed method and hand position was then raised and an alternative method was proposed.

This is how any conversation naturally evolves.

So it really boils down to this.  One can engage in constructive debate even if there is disagreement.  With that in mind if you are on a Public forum and don't want others to chime in, so long as they are being constructive and actually putting forth ideas and not simply trolling, the solution is to take the conversation to private messages.


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> Whatever, thanks.



What's the old saying about arguing with an idiot?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I don't need to "sit on" anything.  You are not my teacher.  Just give direct responses.



It's your teacher's job to give you answers. I'm not your teacher if you come to it yourself.



> In Pin Sun we don't use an extended "ready position" like that.  I was just trying to participate in the parameters of YOUR scenario. But it seems you keep changing it to suit yourself.



The scenario is extremely simple and has not once changed. I don't know why you want to participate if you don't even use the center guard.



KPM said:


> It seems the original scenario that started the discussion in this direction keeps changing.   Looks like LFJ designed a scenario that had no good answer and then you both sit back and laugh at people that try to give an answer, all the while not saying what you would do yourself.  But the answer to that question seems to be..."don't be in that situation to begin with!"  Which is a horribly disingenuous way to drive a discussion!



Again, the scenario has not once changed. Not a single thing about it has changed. The problem it highlights is with the center guard.

If you don't do the center guard, no need to even put yourself in that scenario and then complain about being in that scenario. 



KPM said:


> ---So now trying to participate and make sense out of one of your technical discussions....at your invitation....is considered "trolling"???



You invited yourself and put yourself into a scenario you'd never be in, apparently.

The past dozen pages could be deleted, because it is just people trying to navigate through a scenario with a guard they don't even use.

I was talking to Geezer about the center guard and wedging principle of WT. Other YM lineages also seem to use the center guard. So, they could perhaps chime in. But I don't know why you mainland guys are even here.

I don't mind you participating. It's just very strange that you'd want to and has led nowhere.


----------



## guy b

LFJ is correct. The last 12 pages or so could be deleted because they consist of nothing more than NI, KPM and Juany getting the wrong end of the stick, arguing with anything and everything, concluding (very slowly) that the situation doesn't apply to their mainland crab guard, and then stomping off in the huff.

Very odd behaviour.


----------



## KPM

Yes, certainly the last 12 pages could be deleted.  Because they consisted of you outlining a scenario, other people trying to take part by describing what they would do in such a scenario, you essentially laughing at them and telling them how wrong they are, and you yourself never stating what you would do in the  same scenario.   In the SNT thread Guy asked us several times to participate in THIS thread, so yeah, we were invited.   And I will point out that in that SNT thread neither of you ever defined the "little idea" behind the WSLVT SNT in any kind of detail.   So once again you two have proven how futile it is to try and carry on any kind of technical discussion with you.  "Stomping off in a huff"???   No...more like "shaking my head, throwing up my hands and saying 'should have known better than to even try!'"


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> you outlining a scenario, other people trying to take part by describing what they would do in such a scenario, you essentially laughing at them and telling them how wrong they are, and you yourself never stating what you would do in the  same scenario.



Neither you nor I do WT or use a center guard, so why should either of us try to figure out a solution to a scenario we'd never be in?



> In the SNT thread Guy asked us several times to participate in THIS thread, so yeah, we were invited.



To discuss the teaching clips when they were still the topic, not to pretend to be a WT practitioner.


----------



## wtxs

KPM said:


> What's the old saying about arguing with an idiot?



It goes like this ... you will never win an argument with an idiot, cause they will bet you ever time with their twisted sense of logic.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> LFJ is correct. The last 12 pages or so could be deleted because they consist of nothing more than NI, KPM and Juany getting the wrong end of the stick, arguing with anything and everything, concluding (very slowly) that the situation doesn't apply to their mainland crab guard, and then stomping off in the huff.
> 
> Very odd behaviour.


I believe that "to get the wrong end of the stick" an actual substantive response needs to be delivered.  The responses we have gotten have amounted to "WSLVT is superior and you are wrong."



guy b said:


> If you had studied the system, you would know these basics. So either you aren't telling the truth or somehow you missed the fundamentals. Confusing.



I do understand the basics you speak of.  In this thread I haven't made any comment saying "this is what WSLVT does."  First I simply compared two videos, WSL himself and a video of a student of PB.  Next I stated that, in the specific proposed scenario (not in a global sense) I believe there are methods that exist in other WC Lineages that have a higher like good of success.

It seems that, in your mind, having knowledge of WSLVT by definition means that one must also believe in its inherent superiority thus if someone doesn't recognize the superiority one must have no knowledge.  That kind of circular logic is the essence of most of the arguments, and I use that term loosely, that you make.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I believe that "to get the wrong end of the stick" an actual substantive response needs to be delivered.  The responses we have gotten have amounted to "WSLVT is superior and you are wrong."



Answer to what?

The discussion was only about illustrating the failure of the WT center guard and wedging principle.

I never asked anyone else what they would do in this scenario, and I never said anything about WSLVT being superior.



> I do understand the basics you speak of...
> 
> ...It seems that, in your mind, having knowledge of WSLVT by definition means that one must also believe in its inherent superiority thus if someone doesn't recognize the superiority one must have no knowledge.



You _say_ you understand the basics, but by your posting, you clearly don't. It has nothing to do with your opinion of the lineage.

You have simply never posted anything suggesting the faintest knowledge of WSLVT basics.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> I do understand the basics you speak of. In this thread I haven't made any comment saying "this is what WSLVT does." First I simply compared two videos, WSL himself and a video of a student of PB. Next I stated that, in the specific proposed scenario (not in a global sense) I believe there are methods that exist in other WC Lineages that have a higher like good of success.



The thread has moved on from the initial clips. If you have a point to make about the WT hand position discussion then go ahead.



> It seems that, in your mind, having knowledge of WSLVT by definition means that one must also believe in its inherent superiority thus if someone doesn't recognize the superiority one must have no knowledge.



I'm not really interested in participating in your mission to expose the truth about WSL VT. If you want to talk about it then that's fine. If not then please don't.



> That kind of circular logic is the essence of most of the arguments, and I use that term loosely, that you make.



sigh


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> You _say_ you understand the basics, but by your posting, you clearly don't. It has nothing to do with your opinion of the lineage.
> 
> You have simply never posted anything suggesting the faintest knowledge of WSLVT basics.



That's probably because he's too busy gathering "evidence" for the great expose' later on 

If anyone remotely interested in YM VT was reading this thread then chances are they have a good idea of the argument against WT guard with hands on centre, and the simple solution. It is a shame those pages of nothing can't be deleted though.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Answer to what?
> 
> The discussion was only about illustrating the failure of the WT center guard and wedging principle.
> 
> I never asked anyone else what they would do in this scenario, and I never said anything about WSLVT being superior.



The superiority thing was focused at Guy, not you.  I am actually appreciative of the depth you went into clarifying etc.  That said, when saying X is better than Y, you invite someone to say "well what about Z?"


> You _say_ you understand the basics, but by your posting, you clearly don't. It has nothing to do with your opinion of the lineage.



I already explained that I have said nothing about WSLVT as an art in this thread.  I compared 2 videos and then spoke of alternatives to the man/wu scenario. 

Elsewhere I have spoken largely about things like teaching philosophy, with quotes and the debate regarding flow vs imposition, again with quotes. Since the WSL student that my lineage spawns from is one that you have said "has issues" (as you say of virtually all but PB) a difference in what amounts to philosophical minutia would not be unheard of.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Elsewhere I have spoken largely about things like teaching philosophy, with quotes and the debate regarding flow vs imposition, again with quotes. Since the WSL student that my lineage spawns from is one that you have said "has issues" (as you say of virtually all but PB) a difference in what amounts to philosophical minutia would not be unheard of.



Gary Lam added his own teaching curriculum to the system. It is still the same system at the nuts and bolts level if you remove what GL added.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> I already explained that I have said nothing about WSLVT as an art in this thread. I compared 2 videos and then spoke of alternatives to the man/wu scenario.



Please don't do this in future. I'm really not interested. If you have something to add that is on topic then go ahead.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I compared 2 videos and then spoke of alternatives to the man/wu scenario.



One of your initial posts on the _man_/_wu_ topic seemed as if you were in support of a center guard, citing center line theory. Is that the case?



> Elsewhere I have spoken largely about things like teaching philosophy, with quotes and the debate regarding flow vs imposition, again with quotes. Since the WSL student that my lineage spawns from is one that you have said "has issues" (as you say of virtually all but PB) a difference in what amounts to philosophical minutia would not be unheard of.



The very basics of the system do not amount to philosophical minutia. 

If your VT was missing these elements from the very first form it completely changes everything in regards to understanding the VT approach to fighting and using the system to develop skills for that.

Did your previous WSLVT training involve a center guard?


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> The superiority thing was focused at Guy, not you.



You appear to lead an active imaginary life. If you aren't just KPM and are an actual person then I would ask you to please just stop replying if you don't want to talk normally. I have no desire to fight a stupid battle on a forum with a person I don't know because I get absolutely nothing out of it. It is a complete waste of my time, and yours. All I really want to do is talk about YM VT. I don't have any interest in mainland styles or any other system, including TWC.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> You appear to lead an active imaginary life. If you aren't just KPM and are an actual person then I would ask you to please just stop replying if you don't want to talk normally..




Let's see, in the past Guy has accused me of being Saul Goodman.  Now he thinks I am Juany118!  I guess it never occurred to him that I'm not the only one that has a problem with the way he acts and posts in this forum.


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> You appear to lead an active imaginary life. If you aren't just KPM and are an actual person then I would ask you to please just stop replying if you don't want to talk normally. I have no desire to fight a stupid battle on a forum with a person I don't know because I get absolutely nothing out of it. It is a complete waste of my time, and yours. All I really want to do is talk about YM VT. I don't have any interest in mainland styles or any other system, including TWC.



_Seriously Guy?_ After all the time _you've_ wasted arguing with almost everybody else? And please remember, this is an _open_ forum directed at _all_ WC/WT/VT and open to input from people who practice other martial arts as well. It's fine to nudge people back on topic when thread drift gets out of hand, but you rally have no business trying to screen who posts because you don't like their perspective. 

As for wasting time, I've allowed _you _to waste more than enough of mine. That's why I dropped out of this discussion ...after what began as a promising exchange with LFJ fizzled out. Neither of you two ever responded clearly to the question asked repeatedly by several posters, namely _how do you advocate positioning your man sau and wu sau in WSL-PB-VT? _ 

How about it? Or do you want to continue wasting everybody else's time?


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> _Seriously Guy?_ After all the time _you've_ wasted arguing with almost everybody else?



Juany is stalking me on every thread- it is creepy and pointless. I don't want to have meaningless arguments with random internet IDs. I do want to talk about YM VT. 



> That's why I dropped out of this discussion ...after what began as a promising exchange with LFJ fizzled out. Neither of you two ever responded clearly to the question asked repeatedly by several posters, namely _how do you advocate positioning your man sau and wu sau in WSL-PB-VT_



The reason for that was the 12 page spamming attack by KPM and friends. Actually I was hoping you would come back onto the thread and discuss because you are a much more reasonable person to talk to. 



> How about it?



I would love to discuss something meaningful rather than constantly have to respond to trolling. Where were we?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Let's see, in the past Guy has accused me of being Saul Goodman.  Now he thinks I am Juany118!  I guess it never occurred to him that I'm not the only one that has a problem with the way he acts and posts in this forum.



Please don't post meaningless drivel on discussion threads about VT


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I would love to discuss something meaningful rather than constantly have to respond to trolling. Where were we?



Where were we?  Really?  Geezer  CLEARLY asked   "*Neither of you two ever responded clearly to the question asked repeatedly by several posters, namely *_*how do you advocate positioning your man sau and wu sau in WSL-PB-VT*?" _   But once again you have avoided answering a direct question!!!


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> ...after what began as a promising exchange with LFJ fizzled out.



Nothing between the two of us fizzled out. Things just got muddled before you could carry on our discussion.



> Neither of you two ever responded clearly to the question asked repeatedly by several posters, namely _how do you advocate positioning your man sau and wu sau in WSL-PB-VT?_



It's YMVT, what YM actually taught, not a WSL or PB invention.

Though, I was hoping illustration of the failings of occupying center would spark thought, rather than just asking what I do.

Because if you don't recognize the problem, you won't likely search for or accept the solution.


----------



## geezer

_@KPM--_ Many pages back, when we were discussing the most efficient position for the wu sau, I explained the rationale for the centerline wu-sau, namely that it was best positioned to protect in either direction simply by driving forward (if man sau was displaced). LFJ pointed out weaknesses with this ...which I basically _agreed_ with, but if you are momentarily stuck with fighting with one hand, you are by definition compromised. _driving the wu forward into a punch, biu-sau, etc. _is about as good an option as any. 

Of course there are other effective responses (besides just punching) depending on the angle and force of your opponent's attack. For example, a rebounding indoor pak-sau bouncing forward iinto a fak-sau against a wide-of-center punch, and so on. There are so many possibilities ...that is not really my concern. In fact the biggest hole in the traditional guard with man and wu stuck directly on center is _not_ the straight line attack, _but hooks and looping punches _that angle in from the outside. _LFJ _said as much many pages back --but naturally stayed mum regarding a _solution_. No surprise there. 

Anyway, over the years I've experimented with a wider-set guard derived from my FMA experience that puts my hands, or at least _my bridges,_ about half way between center and side to basically split the difference. This way, my hands have about the same distance to travel to cover center as to cover the side. I've found that I can still use this effectively to wedge and deflect straight-on punches by simply driving forward and counterpunching, as well as delivering a pak, etc. when required. And, I'm also in a better position to address a looping or hooking shot from the outside.

I've also been looking closely at some of the stuff _Alan Orr's_ doing. Not unlike some of what my DTE friends do. Any opinions or suggestions?


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Of course there are other effective responses (besides just punching) depending on the angle and force of your opponent's attack. For example, a rebounding indoor pak-sau bouncing forward iinto a fak-sau against a wide-of-center punch, and so on. There are so many possibilities ...that is not really my concern.



Your concern, I would think, should be whether or not any of those responses would work.

Chasing an incoming strike across center with _paak-sau_, when your lead arm has been removed, only leaves you more vulnerable as the rapid followup strike would cut into your center interrupting you before you'd be able to bounce a _faak-sau_ back out. 

That's the problem with chasing hands. It always leaves you in the past.



> This way, my hands have about the same distance to travel to cover center as to cover the side. I've found that I can still use this effectively to wedge and deflect straight-on punches by simply driving forward and counterpunching, as well as delivering a pak, etc. when required. And, I'm also in a better position to address a looping or hooking shot from the outside.



In the presented scenario where your lead left is removed, a rear right held wider to the right of center would exacerbate your problem, requiring a longer distance to cross center with a chasing _paak-sau_.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Nothing between the two of us fizzled out. Things just got muddled before you could carry on our discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> *It's YMVT, what YM actually taught,* not a WSL or PB invention.
> 
> Though, I was hoping illustration of the failings of occupying center would spark thought, rather than just asking what I do.
> 
> Because if you don't recognize the problem, you won't likely *search for or accept the solution*.



^^^^ Sure, WSL VT_ is_ authentic. And functional. I get that. It's part of what YM taught. It's not _everything_ he taught, or the _only_ way to understand YM VT, or good WC in general. But if that's what you believe, fine. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I'm in no mood to argue _matters of faith! 

As far as searching for solutions, _that's what the study of the martial arts is. And, to my knowledge, a perfect solution that works for everybody doesn't exist. Outside of religion, anyway.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> ^^^^ Sure, WSL VT_ is_ authentic. And functional. I get that. It's part of what YM taught. It's not _everything_ he taught, or the _only_ way to understand YM VT, or good WC in general. But if that's what you believe, fine. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I'm in no mood to argue _matters of faith!_



There are many photos of YM. Any of him with a WT guard?


----------



## Marnetmar

LFJ said:


> There are many photos of YM. Any of him with a WT guard?



Oh Jesus Christ


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Your concern, I would think, should be whether or not any of those responses would work.
> 
> In the presented scenario where your lead left is removed, *a rear right held wider to the right of center would exacerbate your problem*, requiring a longer distance to cross center with a chasing _paak-sau_.



_Of course,_ a wider (further from center) positioning of the rear guard creates a longer distance to respond with a pak-sau to a centerline attack. It also shortens the distance to defend an outside gate attack, and has negligible effect on the time it takes to launch a counterpunch. But that counterpunch is even more likley to pass by the inside of the incoming strike without defending, leading to the "double knockout" scenario you described before. 

So what to do. Give me an actual situation with an actual opponent, and I will play with it and see what works. I won't argue it with a stranger online. I would accept suggestions for solutions to experiment with. A person with an open mind can learn from many sources. 

BTW do _you _have an open mind?


----------



## LFJ

Marnetmar said:


> Oh Jesus Christ



Any showing a clear WT _man_/_wu_ in a frontal view so you can examine details you are unable to recognize otherwise?


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> There are many photos of YM. Any of him with a WT guard?



_"WT" guard? _I've seen many similar versions of man-sau wu-sau, some practiced by the WT group, some by Augustine Fong's group, some by the Yip Chun people and Sam Kwok's group, ...those are some of the people I know from my area. They all do a version of man-sau and wu-sau guarding center. Hand positions and the level of the guard vary a bit. My actual sparring guard varies depending on range and who I'm working against. In escrima I retract my guard and keep my hands closer in. Gunting is a beach on that extended man-sau! And then there are all those hooks. 

Honestly, I haven't found a single_ perfect_ guard for all situations. Apparently you have. In the meantime I make sure I guard center and when in doubt, punch. Not perfect, but it works most of the time.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> _@KPM--_ Many pages back, when we were discussing the most efficient position for the wu sau, I explained the rationale for the centerline wu-sau, namely that it was best positioned to protect in either direction simply by driving forward (if man sau was displaced). LFJ pointed out weaknesses with this ...which I basically _agreed_ with, but if you are momentarily stuck with fighting with one hand, you are by definition compromised. _driving the wu forward into a punch, biu-sau, etc. _is about as good an option as any.
> 
> Of course there are other effective responses (besides just punching) depending on the angle and force of your opponent's attack. For example, a rebounding indoor pak-sau bouncing forward iinto a fak-sau against a wide-of-center punch, and so on. There are so many possibilities ...that is not really my concern. In fact the biggest hole in the traditional guard with man and wu stuck directly on center is _not_ the straight line attack, _but hooks and looping punches _that angle in from the outside. _LFJ _said as much many pages back --but naturally stayed mum regarding a _solution_. No surprise there.
> 
> Anyway, over the years I've experimented with a wider-set guard derived from my FMA experience that puts my hands, or at least _my bridges,_ about half way between center and side to basically split the difference. This way, my hands have about the same distance to travel to cover center as to cover the side. I've found that I can still use this effectively to wedge and deflect straight-on punches by simply driving forward and counterpunching, as well as delivering a pak, etc. when required. And, I'm also in a better position to address a looping or hooking shot from the outside.
> 
> I've also been looking closely at some of the stuff _Alan Orr's_ doing. Not unlike some of what my DTE friends do. Any opinions or suggestions?



Your mention of FMA reminded me of one of the first conversations we had where I noted that I feel my FMA has informed my WC.  As an example, in addressing the round punch based on experience I don't trust a counter strike.  Using footwork and transitioning to a tan and/or bong also raises concerns.  Answer (and I find arm placement from the man/wu we use doesn't matter much) a simple cover if it's to the head/face (which is where hook punch usually are aimed.). It also as the advantage, imo at least, of feeding off a natural flinch reflex making it easier to perform under pressure.

The same with my overall approach towards weapons, it forced me to realize you have to "open" things up if you don't want to get cut.

As for Orr I like his over all concept, at least as I perceive it.  Correct me if you think I am off on this one but I see him as trying to apply the fundamental physical principles of WC (maintaining structure, centerline theory, disrupting the opponent's structure via said centerline.) Now this idea of his may not be applicable if you are simply doing WC v WC in a formal environment, even while sparing but I think taking this idea into the real world where you may find yourself fighting a grappler, a kicker a brawler who likes round punches, focusing on the principles and not the greater dogma of a lineage is a good idea.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> So what to do. Give me an actual situation with an actual opponent, and I will play with it and see what works. I won't argue it with a stranger online.



It's only discussion. A diagram was made for you clearly illustrating the situation and lines of attack.

Maybe set it up with someone in person and "play with it" then.



> BTW do _you _have an open mind?



Yes. That's how I came to my current understanding of VT after doing things that didn't work so well or were flawed. I once thought center had to be occupied too.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> _"WT" guard? _I've seen many similar versions of man-sau wu-sau, some practiced by the WT group, some by Augustine Fong's group, some by the Yip Chun people and Sam Kwok's group, ...those are some of the people I know from my area. They all do a version of man-sau and wu-sau guarding center. Hand positions and the level of the guard vary a bit.



Yeah, more to the point... Any clear frontal photo of YM's guard occupying center in whatever version?


----------



## geezer

Marnetmar said:


> Oh Jesus Christ



No, that's Yip Man. Jesus has a beard.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> No, that's Yip Man. Jesus has a beard.



And that sequence of photos shows something that apparently you guys aren't recognizing.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> _LFJ _said as much many pages back --but naturally stayed mum regarding a _solution_. No surprise there.



Are you saying that you don't wish to discuss any more?


----------



## Marnetmar

Elaborate.


----------



## geezer

Now this guy is not Jesus either. No beard and not perfect.

http://images4.postadsuk.com/2015/02/02/postadsuk.com-wing-chun-vingtsun-wong-shun-leung-system.JPG

However, if you look at his guard a few interesting things are immediately apparent. For one thing, he's slightly turned or "bladed" toward the lead arm. Another thing, his man-sau appears just a bit open or wide of center as though baiting the opponent to strike to the inside (palm-side) of his man sau. The wu sau _is_ pretty close to center,  at least as he is standing in relation to the viewer.

Now that's about all I can hazard and even so wouldn't put much stock in a picture. Pictures ...especially as viewed by people outside of the WSL-VT system are ...just pictures. So, LFJ, please enlighten us!!!


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> Chasing an incoming strike across center with _paak-sau_, when your lead arm has been removed, only leaves you more vulnerable as the rapid followup strike would cut into your center interrupting you before you'd be able to bounce a _faak-sau_ back out.
> 
> That's the problem with chasing hands. It always leaves you in the past.



Excellent point. VT not very good as a reactive system. This is why imposing upon the opponent is so important, it keeps you ahead


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I'm in no mood to argue _matters of faith! _



I thought we were talking about the hands on centre guard of WT. Did YM teach that?


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Now this guy is not Jesus either. No beard and not perfect.
> 
> http://images4.postadsuk.com/2015/02/02/postadsuk.com-wing-chun-vingtsun-wong-shun-leung-system.JPG
> 
> However, if you look at his guard a few interesting things are immediately apparent. For one thing, he's slightly turned or "bladed" toward the lead arm. Another thing, his man-sau appears just a bit open or wide of center as though baiting the opponent to strike to the inside (palm-side) of his man sau. The wu sau _is_ pretty close to center,  at least as he is standing in relation to the viewer.
> 
> Now that's about all I can hazard and even so wouldn't put much stock in a picture. Pictures ...especially as viewed by people outside of the WSL-VT system are ...just pictures. So, LFJ, please enlighten us!!!



Well we see how well it worked out when I compared and contrasted two videos that you can control play back speed on.  I suspect history shall repeat itself.


----------



## guy b

Marnetmar said:


> Oh Jesus Christ


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Well we see how well it worked out when I compared and contrasted two videos that you can control play back speed on.  I suspect history shall repeat itself.



Please stop whining. Don't like, don't post.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> So, LFJ, please enlighten us!!!



Not bad. Try another.

None of YM showing lead and rear from the front that you know of though? 
That's more important, since you are saying the guard comes from YM.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Not bad. Try another.
> 
> None of YM showing lead and rear from the front that you know of though?
> That's more important, since you are saying the guard comes from YM.



I'm more interested in_ what works _than in old photos. Or even in whether something was done by GM Yip, WSL, or anybody else. 

As my first Escrima instructor, Rene Latosa used to say, "Nobody cares who you learned from, it's what_ you_ can do". Unfortunately, too many people do worry too much about names and certificates rather than what you can do, ...and how well you can teach it. One of my current coaches never got a "black belt" in anything, but he has real skill as a fighter and is a very good coach. Many of his students do have very high ranks in various arts.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Honestly, I haven't found a single_ perfect_ guard for all situations. Apparently you have. In the meantime I make sure I guard center and when in doubt, punch. Not perfect, but it works most of the time.



It isn't about perfect solutions, it is about percentages


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> I'm more interested in_ what works _than in old photos. Or even in whether something was done by GM Yip, WSL, or anybody else.



Ok lets go back to the orignal situation and explore options. What can you change about hands help on centre?


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> I'm more interested in_ what works _than in old photos. Or even in whether something was done by GM Yip, WSL, or anybody else.
> 
> As my first Escrima instructor, Rene Latosa used to say, "Nobody cares who you learned from, it's what_ you_ can do". Unfortunately, too many people do worry too much about names and certificates rather than what you can do, ...and how well you can teach it. One of my current coaches never got a "black belt" in anything, but he has real skill as a fighter and is a very good coach. Many of his students do have very high ranks in various arts.



Yeah. That's what I'm trying to get to.

What YM taught works. 

What many came away with, having not learned his full system, doesn't, as I've illustrated in this thread. Center guard makes you chase hands as a last resort and get hit.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Yeah. That's what I'm trying to get to.
> 
> What YM taught works.
> 
> What many came away with, having not learned his full system, doesn't, as I've illustrated in this thread. Center guard makes you chase hands as a last resort and get hit.



Seeing as the guard position is a very basic thing taught early on, Yip Man actually taught this directly to many many students. Yet only WSL got it right? Not because he tweaked it and refined it himself, mind you, ....but because _only he _got what GM Yip was teaching? 

Amazing....

And it is that hard to get, so hard that Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Tsui Sheung Tin, Ho kam Ming, Hawkins Cheung, and all the others (including William Cheung and Leung Ting, et al.) never got it. 

And yet you and Guy have it! 

But you won't share the secret with us .

Though you _will_ encourage us to see the error of our ways and look for the truth. 

Boy, these emojis are _fun_.... ....but I digress .


----------



## wtxs

LFJ said:


> Chasing an incoming strike across center with _paak-sau_, when your lead arm has been removed, only leaves you more vulnerable as the rapid followup strike would cut into your center interrupting you before you'd be able to bounce a _faak-sau_ back out.
> 
> That's the problem with chasing hands. It always leaves you in the past.
> 
> In the presented scenario where your lead left is removed, a rear right held wider to the right of center would exacerbate your problem, requiring a longer distance to cross center with a chasing _paak-sau_.



I agree with you there will be problems in most encounters ... the whole idea of this discussion is to come up with an suitable or better solution.

There can be no resolution when you down play others inputs and has yet to outline how it's done in your lineage.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> I'm more interested in_ what works _than in old photos. Or even in whether something was done by GM Yip, WSL, or anybody else.
> 
> As my first Escrima instructor, Rene Latosa used to say, "Nobody cares who you learned from, it's what_ you_ can do". Unfortunately, too many people do worry too much about names and certificates rather than what you can do, ...and how well you can teach it. One of my current coaches never got a "black belt" in anything, but he has real skill as a fighter and is a very good coach. Many of his students do have very high ranks in various arts.


This is truth.  When I mention my teacher, it's for a similar reason to you.  He could teach Panda Style Kung Fu (sorry just watched the new movie with my God Son lol) but he is an excellent teacher who puts WC and Kali in the context of real world Law Enforcement encounters.  When I mention his WC Sifu (who I also occasionally train under) the only reason I mention the closed door William Cheung thing is to is to explain that in terms of general TWC methodology he knows it, beyond that the real reason I mention him is because he is a combatives Subject Matter Expert for not just the DoJ but a number of US Military organizations including the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command and the U.S. Army Special Operations Command.

I study with them because of their knowledge, experience and teaching ability. 

There is another element though which I think is also missed.  The experience of my teachers only provides me with the potential to grow as an practical martial artist.  In the final equation the buck stops at the practitioner's door.  Avoiding that by endless harkening back to a master who is dead to justify your knowledge or potential for success misses one of the main the points of studying MA imo, personal growth.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Seeing as the guard position is a very basic thing taught early on, Yip Man actually taught this directly to many many students. Yet only WSL got it right? Not because he tweaked it and refined it himself, mind you, ....but because _only he _got what GM Yip was teaching?
> 
> Amazing....
> 
> And it is that hard to get, so hard that Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Tsui Sheung Tin, Ho kam Ming, Hawkins Cheung, and all the others (including William Cheung and Leung Ting, et al.) never got it.
> 
> And yet you and Guy have it!
> 
> But you won't share the secret with us .
> 
> Though you _will_ encourage us to see the error of our ways and look for the truth.
> 
> Boy, these emojis are _fun_.... ....but I digress .


But WSL says that he teaches what YM taught him.  Since other students do things differently (even if only subtly) it's broken and Occam's Razor doesn't apply don't you know


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> you won't share the secret with us
> 
> Though you _will_ encourage us to see the error of our ways and look for the truth



Happy to share with you, but if you don't want to know or not motivated to find out, what point in helping?

All of the pictures of YM that I have seen show him standing with wu as WSL taught, the way that makes sense in terms of the strategy, the forms, everything. As opposed to the way that doesn't (as illustrated earlier in the thread by LFJ). 

I don't know what all of the other people you mentioned teach and wouldn't want to say negative things. But then I don't see what other people think has to do with it- it is something for you to think about if interested, or to forget about if not. The authority of "Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Tsui Sheung Tin, Ho kam Ming, Hawkins Cheung, and all the others (including William Cheung and Leung Ting, et al.)" seems irrelevant to the question.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Since other students do things differently (even if only subtly) it's broken



If the system no longer works as intended then yes it is broken.

The thing about this particular question is that it is critical to lsdd which is essential for thoughless hitting with high % success. It is taught early in the system and it ties many elements together. Without it the strategy fails or requires alteration. It runs right through SNT. Without it you are chasing hands. It isn't rocket science, just needs someone brave enough to be honest and to explore the situation. 

If you would prefer to snipe from the sidelines then not much I can do about it and no benefit comes from this discussion. Up to you. I am away now for a few days so maybe LFJ will help you. But you need to want help for it to be worth giving. Help is not just telling you the answer- you need to think it through.


----------



## wtxs

geezer said:


> But you won't share the secret with us .
> 
> Though you _will_ encourage us to see the error of our ways and look for the truth.





guy b said:


> Happy to share with you, but if you don't want to know or not motivated to find out, what point in helping?



Hope your not getting so flustered  to the point of having reading problem.  Geezer (as others have) clearly waiting for you to share, you clearly stated you would be HAPPY to do so.  What is with that "if you don't want to know or not motivated(???) to find out" BS .. are you trying to squirm out of this one also? 

So let me ask you, is the secret Soooo secret that you are forbidden to reveal?  Or the secret is indeed Soooo secret that you have not been enlighten to it?


----------



## guy b

wtxs said:


> Geezer (as others have) clearly waiting for you to share, you clearly stated you would be HAPPY to do so. What is with that "if you don't want to know or not motivated(???) to find out" BS .. are you trying to squirm out of this one also?



Nobody is making any effort whatsoever. Your post a good example. No point in giving any info to people not motivated to receive it. Info is pretty straight forward in terms of this particular scenario. It's basic stuff, no reason not to share.



> So let me ask you, is the secret Soooo secret that you are forbidden to reveal? Or the secret is indeed Soooo secret that you have not been enlighten to it?



Not secret at all, basics 101. Being a troll is is not likely to help you gain the desired info though. Re-read the couple of posts above.


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> Being a troll ...



Sounds like something you have experience with. 


_Seriously _though. Drop the attitude. You don't know the people on this forum. Some of these guys may be much more experienced in the fighting arts than you ...even if they _don't_ train WSL-PB-VT.


Or maybe not.  Either way, how about taking the high road, at least some of the time. Share your ideas, let others share theirs. And even if you_ think _that your way is best, have the manners not to brag about it!


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> If the system no longer works as intended then yes it is broken.
> 
> The thing about this particular question is that it is critical to lsdd which is essential for thoughless hitting with high % success. It is taught early in the system and it ties many elements together. Without it the strategy fails or requires alteration. It runs right through SNT. Without it you are chasing hands. It isn't rocket science, just needs someone brave enough to be honest and to explore the situation.
> 
> If you would prefer to snipe from the sidelines then not much I can do about it and no benefit comes from this discussion. Up to you. I am away now for a few days so maybe LFJ will help you. But you need to want help for it to be worth giving. Help is not just telling you the answer- you need to think it through.


The problem is you don't define "working as intended" from an independent perspective, rather you are already convinced that WSLPB-VT is THE VT and as such any other WC/VT that claims YM Lineage is broken and not working as intended.  Look at it like Word Processing programs.  There are a number out there.  If you simply do not like the UI of WordPerfect or your main experience is in MS Word, it is reasonable to say you don't like WordPerfect and that you prefer MS Word.  You can then explain why you prefer Word, or the weaknesses of WordPerfect.  It would be ridiculous to say WordPerfect is broken, even more so to make such a claim when your only reason is "Microsoft" but this is exactly what you do when it comes to WSLPB-VT.  

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Happy to share with you, but if you don't want to know or not motivated to find out, what point in helping?


Several people have out right asked several times & continue to do so. If that's not wanting to know or motivation I would like to know what is. Simple truth here is you either don't know or believe it to be top secret.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> If the system no longer works as intended then yes it is broken.


The system was meant to contain Sut Gow & Kum Na. Any branch that removes that to focus on striking only is IMO broken.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Nobody is making any effort whatsoever. Your post a good example. No point in giving any info to people not motivated to receive it. Info is pretty straight forward in terms of this particular scenario. It's basic stuff, no reason not to share.
> 
> 
> 
> Not secret at all, basics 101. Being a troll is is not likely to help you gain the desired info though. Re-read the couple of posts above.


So basically what your saying is that you want people to bai see to you, for you to impart to them basic knowledge on a position useless out side of pre-arranged drills?

Sounds more like you simply can't answer the question.


----------



## guy b

Happy to answer any questions from people who are motivated and honest.


----------



## Nobody Important

I thought WSLPB VT used Chi Sau to develop the punch. Looks to me like Kevin was hand chasing and struggling to keep up with Shawn. I don't believe he punched once let alone land a shot.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Happy to answer any questions from people who are motivated and honest.


Really, you want people to work out the answer for themselves before you reveal your answer. How is that answering their question? Sounds like a tactic to bs your way into making people believe that you've got something special.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> I thought WSLPB VT used Chi Sau to develop the punch. Looks to me like Kevin was hand chasing and struggling to keep up with Shawn. I don't believe he punched once let alone land a shot.



Chi sau a cooperative drill. Not Kev's fault that obasi didn't know this. Not sure what it has to do with me either?


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Really, you want people to work out the answer for themselves before you reveal your answer. How is that answering their question? Sounds like a tactic to bs your way into making people believe that you've got something special.



Not at all, just not much point in talking to people whose agenda is trolling


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Chi sau a cooperative drill. Not Kev's fault that obasi didn't know this. Not sure what it has to do with me either?


Oh right, cooperative drill. Seems to me I remember Kevin mouthing off about his superiority and wasn't able to support his claim. You we're one of his cheerleaders if I remember correctly.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Sounds like something you have experience with.
> 
> 
> _Seriously _though. Drop the attitude. You don't know the people on this forum. Some of these guys may be much more experienced in the fighting arts than you ...even if they _don't_ train WSL-PB-VT.
> 
> 
> Or maybe not.  Either way, how about taking the high road, at least some of the time. Share your ideas, let others share theirs. And even if you_ think _that your way is best, have the manners not to brag about it!



Pointing out problems is not bragging. Not accepting poor answers as equally valid is not attitude. I am open to honest discussion as I have said. Help yourself


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Oh right, cooperative drill. Seems to me I remember Kevin mouthing off about his superiority and wasn't able to support his claim. You we're one of his cheerleaders if I remember correctly.



Nothing to support in a cooperative drill. It's just a cooperative drill. Nothing he can do if training partner is a spaz


----------



## guy b

Lol at the desperation. Look, I don't really have time to deal with moronic points from stupid people who are just trolling. I have an early flight tomorrow. So if you want put some reasonable non bitchy questions, maybe explore the situation a bit, if you are brave enough to do so. Don't worry, I don't know who you really are. I will try to answer tomorrow evening (Europe) if LFJ has not already done so.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Not at all, just not much point in talking to people whose agenda is trolling


You said this:
_"Nobody is making any effort whatsoever. Your post a good example. No point in giving any info to people not motivated to receive it. Info is pretty straight forward in terms of this particular scenario. It's basic stuff, no reason not to share
Help is not just telling you the answer- you need to think it through"_

-------I provided my answer. I'm not looking for help, just your answer to the question. I still haven't received one_._

If there's no reason not to share. Why haven't you shared?


----------



## guy b

You could be Alan Orr, Robert Chu, or sifu Sergio for all I know. Your secret idiocy is fairly safe behind your fake name. So show some guts and explore the question without being such a baby about it. You might even learn something.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Lol at the desperation. Look, I don't really have time to deal with moronic points from stupid people who are just trolling. I have an early flight tomorrow. So if you want put some reasonable non bitchy questions, maybe explore the situation a bit, if you are brave enough to do so. Don't worry, I don't know who you really are. I will try to answer tomorrow evening (Europe) if LFJ has not already done so.


LMAO! Desperation is right. Seems to me you're struggling to answer the question for fear that someone will point it out as wrong.


----------



## guy b

It has been answered already, you dimwit. I think you were hamming it up too much to notice.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> You could be Alan Orr, Robert Chu, or sifu Sergio for all I know. Your secret idiocy is fairly safe behind your fake name. So show some guts and explore the question without being such a baby about it. You might even learn something.


I just might be, does it scare you to think that I might be someone well known in the WC community? If so I could ask that you be provided with a safe space.

I find it odd you won't answer the question. I know the answer, I want to know if you do. 

By your constant deflecting and ignoring, I'm gonna say you don't. So if you would like to know, just ask me real nice like, OK?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> It has been answered already, you dimwit. I think you were hamming it up too much to notice.


No it hasn't, not by you.

Why the name calling? Can't stand on the premise that you believe you hold the "One ring that binds them all" Frodo? Gotta resort to name calling to distract from the fact that you have yet to answer the question?

I can help if you would just ask.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> No it hasn't, not by you.
> 
> Why the name calling? Can't stand on the premise that you believe you hold the "One ring that binds them all" Frodo? Gotta resort to name calling to distract from the fact that you have yet to answer the question?
> 
> I can help if you would just ask.


The problem you note above only has one of three possible answers
1. He was taught by someone who uses the same circular logic as he does (which is not a good thing) so he thinks the question has been answered.
2. He doesn't actually know the answer or how to articulate the answer, and doesn't want to admit this.
3. Never knew the answer to begin with, doesn't even care what the answer may be and is simply in troll mode.

I think the last one is the least likely however because usually people in category #3 don't engage in ad hominem attacks as a defense mechanism, they simply continue with the train of thought that led to the confrontation to get a reaction.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## KPM

Mistaken post


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Lol at the desperation. Look, I don't really have time to deal with moronic points from stupid people who are just trolling. I have an early flight tomorrow. So if you want put some reasonable non bitchy questions, maybe explore the situation a bit, if you are brave enough to do so. Don't worry, I don't know who you really are. I will try to answer tomorrow evening (Europe) if LFJ has not already done so.



Robin can't do anything without Batman!


----------



## geezer

Actually, Guy gave an answer on two occasions many pages back. He said "Punch, punch, punch". 

The problem is that this it what I had previously stated myself when I explained that "Wu never waits" ...that your intention is always forward, and that wu should be already be shooting forward to strike. 

LFJ_ nixed_ this saying that just punching was NOT the solution since your opponent's punch had to be dealt with or you'd both just hit each other. He also ruled out using steps and turns, saying that this could be solved just using a stationary "SNT" approach. At this point I withdrew since the whole scenario began to take on the contrived appearance of a riddle, and it was clear that neither of these two had any interest in presenting _their_ solution. 

Personally, I think the whole idea that there is a "perfect" guard position is unrealistic. Really this thread was _done and over_ ten or fifteen pages back. Honestly, these two should take KPM's advice and just go back to the _other forum._ It's almost empty, and they could re-fashion it into a place just for WSL-PB-VT, get Kevin G. back on board, and post back and forth about how perfect their system is without any of us intruding in their delusional world.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> Mistaken post



You can say that again! I keep asking myself why we ever came back to this thread.


----------



## jks9199

Thread locked pending staff review.

As a reminder, personal attacks, name calling, baiting, inciting conflict and trolling are all violations of the site's rules.  Actions may include anything from warnings to infraction/warning points, up to permanent bans.  A number of users in the Wing Chun forums may find it advisable to think about this, and their behavior.

jks9199
Administrator


----------

