Anyone recognize this?

[KPM]

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



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

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



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

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



We can see exactly this in the videos you provided.

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

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

 

[LFJ]

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

Conceptual ≠ techniques having multiple applications.

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

 

[geezer]

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

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

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

 

[KPM]

Conceptual ≠ techniques having multiple applications.

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

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

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

 

[dudewingchun]

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

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

 

[anerlich]

Here's one example, at :57

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

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

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

 

[geezer]

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

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

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

 

[Nobody Important]

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

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

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

 

[LFJ]

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

In other words, SFA to do with your original bullsh*t assertion.

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

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

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

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

Stepping backward while doing the low bong section? Is that standard?

 

[LFJ]

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

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

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

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

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

A round kick, whips in from the side.

• It can be done high, mid, or low.
• It can be done at a horizontal, upward, or downward angle.
• It can be done from the rear leg with a pivot.
• It can be done from the front leg with or without a pivot.
• It can be doubled up or in combination with other kicks.
• It can be done advancing or retreating.
• It can be done hopping, jumping, or spinning. And so on...

So, what makes your Wing Chun more concept-based than something like kickboxing? You are saying the same thing. You have a technique in your form, and it can be applied in multiple ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nobody Important]

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

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

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



Stepping backward while doing the low bong section? Is that standard?

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

 

[LFJ]

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

That's not what's going on.

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

Footwork is definitely important to consider.

 

[Nobody Important]

That's not what's going on.

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

Footwork is definitely important to consider.

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

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

 

[LFJ]

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

TWC is a pretty straightforward, application-based system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nobody Important]

TWC is a pretty straightforward, application-based system.



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

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

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



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

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

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

 

[KPM]

The forms don't teach direct applications.

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


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

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