jhexx
Yellow Belt
Bingo. The footwork and angling opens up the opportunities for one to strike.
A bit of instruction by WSL
- Thread starter Danny T
- Start date
Callen, you have to realize that Guy and LFJ have given WSLVT people a very bad rep here. Recent threads are a perfect example of why. Not long ago there was a long discussion where they both vehemently denied that WSLVT taught the Tan Da motion, despite people showing several pictures of WSLVT people and WSL himself performing a Tan Da! And now here we see WSL doing a Tan Da during a seminar in which you yourself noted that he is teaching many core principles of WSLVT. But I am sure the "dynamic duo" would still deny that Tan Da is used in WSLVT! Or they will now figure out a way to argue that this is not REALLY what they meant in that prior discussion!
So you are "done" with discussion (for about the 50th time) but would still like to troll the forum with your misunderstanding of WSL VT. Got it.
OP
OP
Danny T
Senior Master
Thank you for the description. Oh and for what it is worth, I agree.
I am asking the question because of the many times I've seen some others describe the same type actions as being 'chasing' and inefficient within the WSL method.
Quick question. With chasing, what does that mean in a Wing Chun context?
o-
For the "correct" answer you know who you need to ask. I can only speak from my incomplete understanding of the broken WC/WT/VT I have studied which I will henceforth refer to as "BVT" (Broken Ving Tsun) so you will not confuse it with the correct VT others may study.
Now from the standpoint of BVT, chasing refers to attempting an attack or defense indirectly by following your opponent's hand movements off-center rather than by executing direct attacks at your opponent along center.
So rather than concern ourselves with inefficient and typically late attempts at responding to our opponent's hand movements, we seek to attack and dominate centerline, forcing the opponent to respond to our movements.
If our centerline attacks are intercepted or obstructed, then we employ a remedial action to free our attack and clear the way to continue attacking according to the motto, "Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung".
When analyzing an exchange (for learning purposes) we look to see if we have moved as efficiently as possible, without unnecessary deviation from a direct path to attack. Optimally, our defenses should be a byproduct of the attack itself (da sau juk si siu sau --attacking hand is defending hand) and be executed as a single movement with the punch functioning also as our defense. If that is not possible, then we seek simultaneous attack and defense (lin siu di dar) coordinating both hands to work together as with tan-da, gaun-da, fook-da, lap-da, etc.
I agree with what has previously been said about there being an objective standard about what is the best VT, at least with the BVT I train. If, for example you can break down an exchange and show me wasted movement, or unnecessary and off-center movement responding to my opponent's hands, or other inefficiencies, then you are showing me errors in my VT. And that is true regardless of the system you practice. For example I've had people like my Escrima coaches Rene Latosa and Martin Torres show me more efficient ways to move. In that instance, they weren't just teaching me FMA, they were correcting my VT.
For the "correct" answer you know who you need to ask. I can only speak from my incomplete understanding of the broken WC/WT/VT I have studied which I will henceforth refer to as "BVT" (Broken Ving Tsun) so you will not confuse it with the correct VT others may study.
Now from the standpoint of BVT, chasing refers to attempting an attack or defense indirectly by following your opponent's hand movements off-center rather than by executing direct attacks at your opponent along center.
So rather than concern ourselves with inefficient and typically late attempts at responding to our opponent's hand movements, we seek to attack and dominate centerline, forcing the opponent to respond to our movements.
If our centerline attacks are intercepted or obstructed, then we employ a remedial action to free our attack and clear the way to continue attacking according to the motto, "Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung".
When analyzing an exchange (for learning purposes) we look to see if we have moved as efficiently as possible, without unnecessary deviation from a direct path to attack. Optimally, our defenses should be a byproduct of the attack itself (da sau juk si siu sau --attacking hand is defending hand) and be executed as a single movement with the punch functioning also as our defense. If that is not possible, then we seek simultaneous attack and defense (lin siu di dar) coordinating both hands to work together as with tan-da, gaun-da, fook-da, lap-da, etc.
I agree with what has previously been said about there being an objective standard about what is the best VT, at least with the BVT I train. If, for example you can break down an exchange and show me wasted movement, or unnecessary and off-center movement responding to my opponent's hands, or other inefficiencies, then you are showing me errors in my VT. And that is true regardless of the system you practice. For example I've had people like my Escrima coaches Rene Latosa and Martin Torres show me more efficient ways to move. In that instance, they weren't just teaching me FMA, they were correcting my VT.
Last edited:
o-
For the "correct" answer you know who you need to ask. I can only speak from my incomplete understanding of the broken WC/WT/VT I have studied which I will henceforth refer to as "BVT" (Broken Ving Tsun) so you will not confuse it with the correct VT others may study.
Now from the standpoint of BVT, chasing refers to attempting an attack or defense indirectly by following your opponent's hand movements off-center rather than by executing direct attacks at your opponent along center.
So rather than concern ourselves with inefficient and typically late attempts at responding to our opponent's hand movements, we seek to attack and dominate centerline, forcing the opponent to respond to our movements.
If our centerline attacks are intercepted or obstructed, then we employ a remedial action to free our attack and clear the way to continue attacking according to the motto, "Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung".
When analyzing an exchange (for learning purposes) we look to see if we have moved as efficiently as possible, without unnecessary deviation from a direct path to attack. Optimally, our defenses should be a byproduct of the attack itself (da sau juk si siu sau --attacking hand is defending hand) and be executed as a single movement with the punch functioning also as our defense. If that is not possible, then we seek simultaneous attack and defense (lin siu di dar) coordinating both hands to work together as with tan-da, gaun-da, fook-da, lap-da, etc.
I agree with what has previously been said about there being an objective standard about what is the best VT, at least with the BVT I train. If, for example you can break down an exchange and show me wasted movement, or unnecessary and off-center movement responding to my opponent's hands, or other inefficiencies, then you are showing me errors in my VT. And that is true regardless of the system you practice. For example I've had people like my Escrima coaches Rene Latosa and Martin Torres show me more efficient ways to move. In that instance, they weren't just teaching me FMA, they were correcting my VT.
Yes, and I would not doubt you're wisdom on this. Of course fighting efficiency is not dictated by form, technique or otherwise, in my less than educated viewpoint of course. Chasing is a very very natural thing thing in my in my arsenal then.
Here was my explanation on the other thread:
If you do a system that is focused on only punching the opponent, then "arm chasing" becomes anything that isn't directed into the opponent's center for the purpose of making the way for the punch which ideally should be happening at the same time. Its like driving a wedge into the opponent's center. Anything that deviates off of the line of drive of that wedge is considered wasted motion and therefore "arm chasing."
But if you do a system that is not no narrowly defined, "arm chasing" is also not so narrowly defined. If you do a system that allows for controlling the opponent, for responding without necessarily always punching them out, for Kum Na type applications, and for the possibility of defending against a weapon, then "arm chasing" is not defined the same way. But we still need to be as direct as possible. We still need to have our ultimate goal as controlling the opponent's center...whether by a strike or a body manipulation, etc. So I define "arm chasing" as anything that distracts from that goal. I think if you do more than three counts in a particular technique or defense without affecting the opponent's center and his balance in some way....then you are "arm chasing" because you have lost your focus. For example.....if an opponent throws a relatively long range extended punch that allows me to come under it with a double grab (what we call a "Lung Na") and then pivot to guide him past me and yank him off his feet, I have definitely avoided an attack and dissolved the threat. But this would be "arm chasing" by the other definition.
Yeah, somewhat confused by that, but I do think I know what you are saying. A long range extended punch to me would be a be deflect, followed by a deflect kick or a knee. Depending on how I stood off, or closed the distance. If I stand off, generally I will go for the lock. Tie thier arms up, I have myriad options to push, squash and what not. To me that would be chasing the arm. Of course though, if I had a oponent in a lock, a leg sweep would be the natural course of action. Loss of focus is not something I quite understand.
Why even attempt to define and explain a system you have no experience with and don't understand?
By this definition, jat-sau would be arm-chasing, since it's not even going forward. Something must be wrong with your theory.
Arm-chasing is fixating on controlling arms rather than space. This can happen even if one maintains center. Most often it's because people don't understand range, tactical footwork, angling, etc.. They stay out, playing straight line and messing with hands on center. This is still arm-chasing.
What of it. Perhaps you're expert view, and training in WSLVT will suffice. I mean you like technician grade right?
No it's not. Space is always avalibel. Push, pull or whatever. Controlling the arms is always an allie with space. Space never disappears, just the environment dictates with what to work with. Space though, is always there. Guess one has to have the menatality to understand that, not just relying on doctrine. Which invariably fails, if one does not understand the environment!
Why on earth are you posting on a wing chun forum?
Why not. Are you that prejudiced against against other members posting. Obviously so. Do you really believe that you offer anything on this forum, other than a petty belief that you are right, and everybody else is wrong, is going to prevail. I will post on this forum whenever I feel I wish too. I don't need any permission to do so, least of all from some WSLVT nerd, who obviously does not have the capacity to accept other viewpoints, whether they are right or wrong. A forum is exchange of ideas and knowledge which in itself is to expand the mind, I left with the impression that yourse is fully closed. So, why on earth do you post on a Wing Chun forum?
I'm not asking by what authority you post on the wing chun forum. I'm asking why do you do it?
Obviously it is an open forum and you can post whatever you like, but when you go in the space of a couple of posts from asking what is hand chasing, to arguing about the detail of hand chasing with someone who has a deep understanding of the system, then it is difficult to understand your motivation.
You seem quite an emotional guy and you have said yourself that you have reading comprehension problems. You also have zero understanding of the system. Perhaps then it would be better, not just for me but also for you and everyone else, if you listened more and gave your opinion less? Just a suggestion.
Last edited:
Yeah I do listen, and no, I am not an emotional guy, quite the opposite. Of course though, you are entitled to your opinion, and on who has a deep understanding of the system, whether that is right or wrong. If some of the experts on here tell me to listen more, and my use of my ask and digest approach, then ask again, is not at all valid, then of course I will digest what they say, and listen
