cutting punch

[Nobody Important]

Did I ever argue otherwise? No.



The elbow never rises above shoulder level, nor does it rise to close the triangle between the shoulder, fist, and elbow (full extension, popping elbow up).

This is what I have been comparing the entire thread long. Doing this, versus raising the elbow above shoulder level, or allowing it to rise to close the triangle, as NI described for his basic punch.

It doesn't matter to what level we punch, the elbow stays down. Not just oriented downward, down in relation to the shoulder and fist. It does not rise from the low position of the triangle.

What you guys are arguing against is a very stupid strawman about the elbow not ascending with the triangle.

Some of you have argued that the elbow cannot remain on the same horizontal plane while the arm is extended in a punch. That is demonstrably false and proven by the experiment I presented.

Does that mean the elbow will never ascend? No! But even as it ascends, the triangle is maintained. The elbow does not rise (in relation to the triangle or above shoulder level).

Please tell me you all can put your braincells together and understand this time.

Here is where a large part of the miscommunication started. I was attempting to explain Inside/Outside Gate punching, not in any specific context, out side of the concept itself. At no point was I directly referencing the VT punch or even the YCWWC punch, but the action of punching itself. Elbow ideas, angles, how the arm extends were all brought into the conversation of "Cutting Punches" as vague side points surrounding the concept of Gate/Inclusion/Exclusion/Cutting. From there it turned into a convoluted argument surrounding everything except the actual topic of the thread. All of this could have been avoided if you would have simply explained your "elbow ideas" when asked, instead of being obtuse. You have to take into consideration that I do not do WSLVT and am not familiar with your terminology, concepts etc. You claim they are not universal amongst Wing Chun lines, so what makes you think I would know what you are alluding to with vague tag lines like "elbow ideas". If explained, and it was understood that everything was to be discussed surrounding the parameters of the straight punch as determined by your VT there would have been no contention to the plausibility of the Inside Gate Punch. I clearly stated several times that the only way it will work is at full extension of the arm, type of strike irrelevant. Since this violates VT punching rules, why would you even continue to argue when we were obviously talking about two very different things? You could have simply came out and stated the parameters by explaining your elbow ideas from the beginning. Instead you chose to guard the idea for fear I would claim it, which is weird since I had already mentioned the triangle of shoulder, elbow, wrist as the joints involved in the mechanics. Right there you could have clarified what you meant in regards to the elbow not rising, and I would have understood where you were coming from. Instead you chose to argue about nothing for purposes known only to you.

 

[Nobody Important]

Aligning your shoulder, elbow, and fist was part of your basic description of gate punching way back on page 2, at the very start of this thread.

From a top view perspective if your shoulder, elbow and wrist are all on the same line are they not in alignment?

If your high level inner gate strike won't work without full extension, you are changing the way you perform the punch in response to the opponent's arm level, extending further to pop the elbow up and wedge their arm out.

It's reactive arm-chasing.

The fact that you explained pivoting to this side or that depending on which arm is incoming further illustrates your action as a deliberate response to a specific punch.

I understand you are trying to deflect and punch with the same action, but you are chasing to do it with large deliberate actions. These are workarounds for missing SNT elbow.

And I clearly stated several times it wouldn't be something that you actively seek to do because it would be arm chasing, especially at the high level. But you kept fixating on high level when refuting my statement that in and out gate punching is performed in the same manner. I stated only if on the same level. An outer gate will be done differently on mid level than an inner gate on high level. The only time it can be done as a spontaneous action while punching is at the mid level, I explained that too. In the PB series of images you can see him doing an outside gate punch at mid level. That may not be what you refer to it as in WSLVT, but that is what it is in YCWWC. You kept ignoring this to fixate on arguments that compared elbow position of the mid gate as violating VT rules when applied to the high inside gate punch I described. I explicitly expressed over and over again that VT punching rules cannot apply to high inner gate, you will get hit, the arm has to be at full extension, hence being able to use something else like Faak Sau, Biu Sau, Sat Sau etc. in such a fashion.

His elbow doesn't go in and out like a straight punch. It is entirely different. That you can't recognize it without a hand shows you don't understand the elbow. Elbow position not the same as in punching. Go learn VT.

I don't know how you can definitively determine that it doesn't do so from that side view, but if you insist OK. I'm not going to argue a moot point. I guess we all see what we want to.

 

[LFJ]

I was attempting to explain Inside/Outside Gate punching, not in any specific context, out side of the concept itself. At no point was I directly referencing the VT punch or even the YCWWC punch, but the action of punching itself.

How is that in any way meaningful if there is more than one way to punch?

I asked you about your gate punch and this was your basic description of it.

It's obvious, in the first few pages of this thread, and you are rewriting now.

Elbow ideas, angles, how the arm extends were all brought into the conversation of "Cutting Punches" as vague side points surrounding the concept of Gate/Inclusion/Exclusion/Cutting.

Wrong. The discussion started on the other thread concerning the universalness of elbow focus in YM lineages. Cutting punches were presented as an example, and the debate went from there.

I clearly stated several times that the only way it will work is at full extension of the arm, type of strike irrelevant. Since this violates VT punching rules, why would you even continue to argue when we were obviously talking about two very different things?

Again, because you injected yourself into a discussion you didn't bother reading first.

Instead you chose to guard the idea for fear I would claim it,

Which you did by saying your punch is the same as PB's, when it's entirely different.

 

[LFJ]

From a top view perspective if your shoulder, elbow and wrist are all on the same line are they not in alignment?

You said shoulder lowest point on the attack line if high level. All three joints on the same plane if mid level.

What you are describing here is elbow following wrist on a line of attack. Wrist-led.

And I clearly stated several times it wouldn't be something that you actively seek to do because it would be arm chasing, especially at the high level.

Pivoting one way or another and punching this way or that in response to a specific incoming arm, as you explained, is reactive to the opponent's punch.

But you kept fixating on high level when refuting my statement that in and out gate punching is performed in the same manner. I stated only if on the same level. An outer gate will be done differently on mid level than an inner gate on high level.

You defined level as the opponent's incoming punch, and your required level in response. This is reactive arm-chasing.

In the PB series of images you can see him doing an outside gate punch at mid level.

His punch is not wrist-led and the three joints are not on the same line. It is entirely different from the mid-level gate punch you described.

 

[Nobody Important]

How is that in any way meaningful if there is more than one way to punch? I asked you about your gate punch and this was your basic description of it. It's obvious, in the first few pages of this thread, and you are rewriting now.

I am rewriting nothing. I have been arguing the same points all along and have been consistent. YOU kept interjecting different elements into the concept.

Wrong. The discussion started on the other thread concerning the universalness of elbow focus in YM lineages. Cutting punches were presented as an example, and the debate went from there.

Correct, and you asked me to come over to the thread discussing cutting punch, because I said it was WC101. My error for not reading all the discussion, I owned up to that. When I saw you guys talking about the cutting punch I said that there is a similar concept in YCWWC called a gate punch. I made it as a passing comment, but you and Guy couldn't leave it at that, you two had to grill me on the topic of Gate Punching. I obliged but you had to turn the conversation back to "elbow ideas" which you never explained. I didn't realize you wanted to keep the CONCEPT of "Cutting" restrained to the limitation of VT elbow rules. You could have clarified that prior to asking me to discuss it on your thread. Or was this on purpose to bait me into an argument?

Again, because you injected yourself into a discussion you didn't bother reading first. Which you did by saying your punch is the same as PB's, when it's entirely different.

I made a passing comment about a concept, nothing more. You invited me into the conversation.

It isn't about the mechanics of the punch. Its about the concept. What part of that can't you understand? The concept is the same, not the manner it is done. It's a basic concept.

 

[LFJ]

I didn't realize you wanted to keep the CONCEPT of "Cutting" restrained to the limitation of VT elbow rules. You could have clarified that prior to asking me to discuss it on your thread. Or was this on purpose to bait me into an argument?

It was very clear from my first posts in this thread that I was talking about the elbow.

The concept is the same, not the manner it is done. It's a basic concept.

It's not the same at all. This is what you explained earlier:

Imagine a right punch being thrown at your chest, using your left hand, while pivoting left, you punch over his arm, your forearm knocks it offline as you hit his head. Now if it is the same punch being thrown with his left hand, you pivot right while punching with your right hand under his arm, your forearm knocks it offline as you strike his head. This would all be in middle level. If it were at high level (like in your videos), your arm has to extend more, causing the wrist and elbow to be higher than shoulder, otherwise you'll get hit.

You have to pivot one way and use this arm if that arm comes, and pivot the other way and use the that arm if this arm comes.

You have to raise your elbow if at one level, and keep it low if at another.

These are all deliberate reactions to an opponent's punch thrown at a specific level from a specific arm so that you'll be able to knock their arm off line.

This is arm-chasing. Not true lin-siu-daai-da.

True LSDD is non-thinking and not dictated by the opponent's punch. It doesn't require pivoting to dodge and change angles, or reactively raising or sinking the elbow by extending more or less in order to intercept an arm.

 

[Nobody Important]

Quote option not working.

1. What I am describing is a fully extended arm, not the VT arm.

2. I've stated time and time again that the gate punch is not something that you actively pursue, you do not chase the arm. It is something that can occur naturally when punching. I have attempted to describe it for you by explaining it in a drill scenario. You would have to rotate or get hit. Again the gate punch can occur as a result of simply punching, if it happens over their arm it is outer, under it is inner. You keep imagining this as if it is purposefully done by chasing the arm, it is not.

3. How else was I to describe how the arm would be via the level you are reacting to in an imaginary situation. Again the scenario was to explain the position to illustrate the point.

4. The concept of gate/exclusion/inclusion/cutting punch is present, therefore the same. I am not interested in the mechanics.

 

[LFJ]

1. What I am describing is a fully extended arm, not the VT arm.

You described your fully extended inside gate punch at high level.

2. I've stated time and time again that the gate punch is not something that you actively pursue, you do not chase the arm. It is something that can occur naturally when punching. I have attempted to describe it for you by explaining it in a drill scenario. You would have to rotate or get hit. Again the gate punch can occur as a result of simply punching, if it happens over their arm it is outer, under it is inner. You keep imagining this as if it is purposefully done by chasing the arm, it is not.

You have to rotate or get hit, because you're not using non-reactive LSDD.

You are rotating one way or another in response to a specific punch from a specific arm.

I understand your punch "automatically" intercepts, but it is made possible by deliberate reactive measures.

3. How else was I to describe how the arm would be via the level you are reacting to in an imaginary situation. Again the scenario was to explain the position to illustrate the point.

Right. I understand this is an imaginary situation, but it's describing reactive arm-chasing principles.

4. The concept of gate/exclusion/inclusion/cutting punch is present, therefore the same. I am not interested in the mechanics.

The concept you describe is entirely different than VT concepts of LSDD.

 

[Nobody Important]

@LFJ post#386

I've explained myself, time and again only to have you approach the same arguments in a different way and with varying levels of minutia. To what purpose I am unclear. You are imagining things in a manner in which they were never intended, whether this is intentional or by misunderstanding is unclear. I concede as I have no interest in continuing this discussion. Take from it what you will. Your divisiveness, vitriol, disdain and arrogance towards me is unwarranted. Your and Guy B's opinions of me do not matter. At the end of the day I'm going to keep doing what I do regardless of what someone else, half a world away thinks is right or wrong. Have a good evening and thank you for your time.

 

[LFJ]

Your divisiveness, vitriol, disdain and arrogance towards me is unwarranted. Your and Guy B's opinions of me do not matter.

Why are you taking personal offense? I have said nothing about you as a person.

I'm just addressing the ideas you share. The discussion is purely technical, and I have been non-hateful about it.

Try to remove ego from the discussion and honestly take on the points as they come. This is what I have been doing.

 

[guy b.]

Why are you taking personal offense? I have said nothing about you as a person.

I'm just addressing the ideas you share. The discussion is purely technical, and I have been non-hateful about it.

Try to remove ego from the discussion and honestly take on the points as they come. This is what I have been doing.

SOP for Nobody Important

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hey guys. Seriously. Not all great training is on YouTube. didn't you say this just a bit ago? What's this weird obsession with video?

It seems this punch that is ubiquitous in their style would be in a video somewhere. It would make the discussion much easier.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Elbow rising is elbow popping up. Standard VT terminology

And yet, when I referred to the elbow changing horizontal planes, you said that didn't happen in VT. That's not nearly the same as "popping".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Nope, he is specifically talking about popping up the elbow and flattening the triangle in wing chun in answer to you talking about wing chun, i.e. complete nonsense.

I never saw him say that the triangle gets flattened to a line. He refers to the elbow being above the shoulder in a high strike, which I read as a strike to a target well above your own shoulder. That's a reasonable statement, assuming that target isn't very close, since an extended arm (for a punch a few inches short of full-extension) leaves a shallow bend in the elbow. If the target is far enough above the shoulder, then that shallow angle means the elbow is above the shoulder. It's a matter of geometry, though choices can be made to avoid this (not punching that high, keeping high targets closer, etc.).

 

[lansao]

The reason would be so that you aren't able to just claim them as your own, as you have done many times before. This is why it is useful to talk things through to get a clear idea of where others stand before revealing details.

Being evasive and dishonest doesn't help speed this process.

That's not the reason.

 

[lansao]

What exactly are you calling a strike in the form?

And why are you afraid of having your gate punch pinned down? Are you not confident about it?

The strikes. Capping/gate/excluding punch used by real fighters, not unique to Wing Chun. Check out Mohammed Ali.

 

[lansao]

Outer gate & inner gate punches.

Also wrist/hand-led, no awareness of elbow.

You don't know that.

 

[lansao]

So, the elbow is the same for inside or outside gate? How does it deal with the incoming punch obstructing the line? You just try to punch straight through it?

You're missing footwork. Take your time, think about it, ask your Sifu.

 

[lansao]

Elbow stays on the line of attack, but YKS and YC forms show elbow rising and lack of any sophisticated elbow idea.

Forward central body movement with hip rotation through full extension a foot past target or you're slap fighting.

 

[guy b.]

And yet, when I referred to the elbow changing horizontal planes, you said that didn't happen in VT. That's not nearly the same as "popping".

Quote me please