Good teaching clip

Status
Not open for further replies.
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? :facepalm:
 
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?
 
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.
 
All that work and you still can't figure it out? :facepalm:
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.
 
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.
 
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. :facepalm:

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

This is mainstream Wing Chun. :drowning:
 
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?
 
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.

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.
 
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. :facepalm:

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

This is mainstream Wing Chun. :drowning:
 
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.
 

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 :facepalm:

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

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

This is mainstream Wing Chun. :drowning:

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.

upload_2016-11-21_10-49-29.webp

This is what you are explaining

upload_2016-11-21_10-50-4.webp


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.
 
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! :facepalm:
 
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
 
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 :facepalm:

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 :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top