Ho Kam Ming wing chun

[LFJ]

I don't feel that either of you, and especially LFJ, are very open to different approaches to WC. Although you may ask questions, they often seem more rhetorical in nature, as though your minds are already made up.

Well, it only helps to make up my mind when I don't get any negative/constructive criticism on the method I describe, and when people don't, for whatever reason, defend their methods against the points I've raised with any amount of detail.

The last time I received some criticism in person was when a guy told me my chi-sau was not as "fun" as some others, but he could see how mine could lead to more functional skills. I'll take that. Fun is subjective anyway. I have fun, but I care more that what I do will actually work when I need it to.

 

[LFJ]

And who am I to
destroy a stereotype/characterization of me that LFJ
says he has developed
by reading my posts in two sites over time.I choose to forget all the
ad hominem labels that he used.

I suggest you look up that term "ad hominem" before using it again. It means to attack the person and not their argument. Have I done that? I put quite a bit of effort into describing why I don't agree with your method and what I would do differently and why. My "character assessment" on you was a separate deduction based on your posting style, not an ad hominem.

You, on the other hand, never addressed my points or gave anything but a vague non-response before calling me dogmatic. Ignoring my argument, refusing to address constructive criticism even/especially if it was wrong or misplaced, and calling me dogmatic... That's ironically both ad hominem and dogmatic on your part.

I don't know what kind of picture you're trying to paint here, but it seems to be coming out as an ugly self-portrait, innit?!

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I think you should be able to clearly explain how and why you do things, as well as how and why you shouldn't do things another way. VT should be simple. If you can't explain it in plain language, something is wrong.

I find this to be a frustrating position that many people revert to when faced with a written or verbal argument about how their system works. I agree that it should be simple to explain why and how you do whatever it is that you do.

Hmm. I'm a reasonably articulate guy, but there's lots of stuff in my arts that I can communicate easily with in-person hands-on demonstration that would be very difficult to explain clearly just with words on a page. Even with someone who has a similar background to me, there are limitations to what I can get across strictly verbally. If someone doesn't have the same background, it gets even harder.

I'm not a chunner, so maybe you WC/WT/VT guys have worked out a way to infallibly convey all these nuances of movement to someone who doesn't share your assumptions using just your words. Available evidence suggests otherwise though.

 

[geezer]

Hmm. I'm a reasonably articulate guy, but there's lots of stuff in my arts that I can communicate easily with in-person hands-on demonstration that would be very difficult to explain clearly just with words on a page. Even with someone who has a similar background to me, there are limitations to what I can get across strictly verbally. If someone doesn't have the same background, it gets even harder.

I'm not a chunner, so maybe you WC/WT/VT guys have worked out a way to infallibly convey all these nuances of movement to someone who doesn't share your assumptions using just your words. Available evidence suggests otherwise though.

You are exactly right, Tony. One thing BJJ and 'Chun have in common is tactile-training exercises. You have to learn how to deal with energies actually given and received in practice. Verbal descriptions, even when supplemented by videoclips are at best a supplement to in-person training.

 

[guy b.]

You are exactly right, Tony. One thing BJJ and 'Chun have in common is tactile-training exercises. You have to learn how to deal with energies actually given and received in practice. Verbal descriptions, even when supplemented by videoclips are at best a supplement to in-person training.

Of course verbal communication is a supplement to in-person training. It isn't training, it is verbal communication of ideas.

As someone currently training in bjj and wing chun I cannot relate to this viewpoint in the slightest.

It is simple to talk in terms of bjj about pressure, off-balancing, finding base, the various standard positions, guard, half guard, passing guard, regaining guard, sweeping from guard, top position, side control, taking back, attacking the arm, attacking the neck, stringing movements together in various ways, and discussing the reasons for doing so.

It doesn't really matter if your audience understands or not initially, you can clarify through more discussion. It is the act of even trying that is often missing here. Not always, just often. It seems like a cop out to say that you can't find the words. Mostly it looks more like avoiding the question when it happens.

 

[geezer]

It doesn't really matter if your audience understands or not initially, you can clarify through more discussion. It is the act of even trying that is often missing here. Not always, just often. It seems like a cop out to say that you can't find the words. Mostly it looks more like avoiding the question when it happens.

Dudewingchun post 103 on the thread on Padwork in WC was the latest person to state that it was too hard to put even basic "body mechanics" into words. In post 104, you encouraged him to have a try anyway. If he does, I hope it meets your approval.

I personally don't feel it's worth the effort. Every time I've tried, I spend a lot of time only to have certain people completely misinterpret and dismiss my point. Others, who have more of an understanding of my lineage, or who just have an open mind, get my point without such laborious description. Maybe it's me, maybe not. Whatever the reason, I'm done for now. If you or LFJ are genuinely interested in what other lineages have to offer, I'm sure there is somebody out there who will try to explain what they do in excruciatingly fine detail. And then I'm sure LFJ will dismiss what they say just as quickly.

And you guys still claim to wonder why an old pro like Joy doesn't waste his time with this stuff!

 

[Phobius]

Key to any good discussion, both parties must be interested in understanding the other. Problem on a forum is that most often one party or both just want to read what is there and argue back, missing the necessity of making sure everything is firstly well understood by confirmation.

 

[KPM]

Dudewingchun post 103 on the thread on Padwork in WC was the latest person to state that it was too hard to put even basic "body mechanics" into words. In post 104, you encouraged him to have a try anyway. If he does, I hope it meets your approval.

I personally don't feel it's worth the effort. Every time I've tried, I spend a lot of time only to have certain people completely misinterpret and dismiss my point. Others, who have more of an understanding of my lineage, or who just have an open mind, get my point without such laborious description. Maybe it's me, maybe not. Whatever the reason, I'm done for now. If you or LFJ are genuinely interested in what other lineages have to offer, I'm sure there is somebody out there who will try to explain what they do in excruciatingly fine detail. And then I'm sure LFJ will dismiss what they say just as quickly.

And you guys still claim to wonder why an old pro like Joy doesn't waste his time with this stuff!

Amen brother!

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It is simple to talk in terms of bjj about pressure, off-balancing, finding base, the various standard positions, guard, half guard, passing guard, regaining guard, sweeping from guard, top position, side control, taking back, attacking the arm, attacking the neck, stringing movements together in various ways, and discussing the reasons for doing so.

It doesn't really matter if your audience understands or not initially, you can clarify through more discussion. It is the act of even trying that is often missing here. Not always, just often. It seems like a cop out to say that you can't find the words. Mostly it looks more like avoiding the question when it happens.

I can certainly talk about all that stuff in general. I can even communicate some specifics about particular techniques, especially if the person I'm talking to has a similar background.

What I can't do with any kind of reliability is communicate verbally why I prefer variation A of a technique where I apply pressure at this precise angle instead of variation B of that same technique where I apply pressure at that precise angle or explain the exact circumstances where I would use one versus the other. That sort of thing is easy to demonstrate in person, not so easy with words on the page.

If you are able to do this, then good for you! You've got me and every other BJJ instructor I know beat.

 

[guy b.]

I can certainly talk about all that stuff in general. I can even communicate some specifics about particular techniques, especially if the person I'm talking to has a similar background.

What I can't do with any kind of reliability is communicate verbally why I prefer variation A of a technique where I apply pressure at this precise angle instead of variation B of that same technique where I apply pressure at that precise angle or explain the exact circumstances where I would use one versus the other. That sort of thing is easy to demonstrate in person, not so easy with words on the page.

If you are able to do this, then good for you! You've got me and every other BJJ instructor I know beat.

You can't describe why you prefer one variation of a position over another in terms of the position based theory of bjj? And you don't know any bjj teachers that can do this?

Again I find a bit hard to believe.

I would describe why (for example) I like one half guard approach over another in terms of where it leads, likelihood of success with it, options from it if it fails, how it integrates with other options that I favour, how I works with my strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Danny T]

Up through my intermediate training I could select and explain what I felt my prefer actions could be/would be.
At the point I am in my journey I really have no preferred. My responds are based upon what is given. I can explain generally what I may do at any one point but as soon as the opponent moves that all may well change. I would have to describe a lot of different variables. I am willing to bet that if you discuss with most any high level practitioner/instructor that even when demonstrating an action or combination once and upon repeating if the assistant does something slightly different the instructor ends up doing something other than what was supposed to be shown. It isn't because they have a preferred but because they don't have one and because they simple respond to what was provided. Difficult to describe it all; for me any way.
Let's take a Right punch from an opponent for example... Describe how you handle it... What is your preferred action and the options from that if it fails.

 

[guy b.]

Up through my intermediate training I could select and explain what I felt my prefer actions could be/would be.
At the point I am in my journey I really have no preferred. My responds are based upon what is given. I can explain generally what I may do at any one point but as soon as the opponent moves that all may well change. I would have to describe a lot of different variables. I am willing to bet that if you discuss with most any high level practitioner/instructor that even when demonstrating an action or combination once and upon repeating if the assistant does something slightly different the instructor ends up doing something other than what was supposed to be shown. It isn't because they have a preferred but because they don't have one and because they simple respond to what was provided. Difficult to describe it all; for me any way.

I don't mean describing in terms of if he does A then do B. That is application style thinking and can never work. What I mean is talking about a specific approach to combat that you take, why you take, and the ability to discuss reasons for specific parts of that approach. I think most people take a specific approach and try to make that work against the opposition,rather than just reacting to what happens.

For example in bjj I find a top game suits by body best. If I find myself on the bottom then I like to try and take the back. I use different approaches that allow me a good chance of being able to do this, often involving half guard. I avoid triangle chokes, complex guards like spider or de la riva, and certain other things because they do not suit me and the way I grapple. I love to attack the neck and so I try to work on ways that maximise my chances of ending up in this kind of position.

Let's take a Right punch from an opponent for example... Describe how you handle it... What is your preferred action and the options from that if it fails.

My approach is the general approach of WSL VT: maximise the chances of being able to attack the attack (I guess 'jeet' for those who like Chinese terms) with my own attack through movement, hand and body positioning. Once attacking eat space and do not stop attacking. Use helping actions to remove obstructions and keep punching. It is not a reactive strategy, it is one that needs to be imposed upon the opponent and which relies on taking the initiative. Elbow and punching lines covering while attacking gives confidence and allows strong attack without fear or thought about what the opponent is doing.

 

[Phobius]

My approach is the general approach of WSL VT: maximise the chances of being able to attack the attack (I guess 'jeet' for those who like Chinese terms) with my own attack through movement, hand and body positioning. Once attacking eat space and do not stop attacking. Use helping actions to remove obstructions and keep punching. It is not a reactive strategy, it is one that needs to be imposed upon the opponent and which relies on taking the initiative. Elbow and punching lines covering while attacking gives confidence and allows strong attack without fear or thought about what the opponent is doing.

I think you just described Wing chun.

 

[geezer]

...Once attacking eat space and do not stop attacking. Use helping actions to remove obstructions and keep punching. It is not a reactive strategy, it is one that needs to be imposed upon the opponent and which relies on taking the initiative.

I agree with Phobius. This is good advice for all WC ...heck for combat in general, regardless of "style".

One point of clarification though. As you state above the ideal is to take the offensive and force the opponent into a reactive strategy. Unfortunately, the other guy is (or should be) trying to do the same thing. So it isn't always possible to impose your strategy on your opponent. Sometimes we are put on the defensive and need to react appropriately to regain a dominant or offensive position. "Turning defeat into victory" was one phrase my old sifu used. That's why we train an interactive strategy through drills like chi sau.
.

 

[wckf92]

This is good advice for all WC ...heck for combat in general, regardless of "style".

One point of clarification though. As you state above the ideal is to take the offensive and force the opponent into a reactive strategy. Unfortunately, the other guy is (or should be) trying to do the same thing. So it isn't always possible to impose your strategy on your opponent. Sometimes we are put on the defensive and need to react appropriately to regain a dominant or offensive position. "Turning defeat into victory" was one phrase my old sifu used. That's why we train an interactive strategy through drills like chi sau.
.

This is an awesome post IMO and is one of the reasons why all of us see so many differences in method/strategy/"application" etc in our individual lineages or personal interpretations of WC/WT/VT.

 

[Danny T]

I think you just described Wing chun.

And most all forms of combat.

 

[KPM]

I think you just described Wing chun.

I agree with Phobius! But I would also like to point out that this is rather a "one dimensional" version of Wing Chun. Some Wing Chun does include an element of Chin Na. So, as to the question of reacting to a punch....what if that punch is coming from your drunk uncle Ed at your New Year's eve party when he says he wants to "test your Kung Fu!"??? Are you going to smash dear ole uncle Ed in the nose with your punch and keep blasting until he is down and out on the ground? Can you parry and evade without just reflexively punching away? Can you deflect and guide uncle Ed into a nose dive into the couch cushions? Can you deflect and put uncle Ed in a joint lock so he is convinced your Kung Fu is good without hurting him? The mindset that Wing Chun "is all about the punch!" is limited thinking IMHO.

 

[guy b.]

I think you just described Wing chun.

I'm glad you agree

I agree with Phobius!

Good

But I would also like to point out that this is rather a "one dimensional" version of Wing Chun.

Lol, so actually you don't agree

Some Wing Chun does include an element of Chin Na. So, as to the question of reacting to a punch....what if that punch is coming from your drunk uncle Ed at your New Year's eve party when he says he wants to "test your Kung Fu!"??? Are you going to smash dear ole uncle Ed in the nose with your punch and keep blasting until he is down and out on the ground? Can you parry and evade without just reflexively punching away? Can you deflect and guide uncle Ed into a nose dive into the couch cushions? Can you deflect and put uncle Ed in a joint lock so he is convinced your Kung Fu is good without hurting him? The mindset that Wing Chun "is all about the punch!" is limited thinking IMHO.

Wing chun is what it is. I would suggest not smashing your uncle if he throws a drunken punch at you.

 

[Phobius]

guy b. Please, this last post was just a flaming attempt.

 

[guy b.]

guy b. Please, this last post was just a flaming attempt.

The post before was the trolling post. I just didn't bother to sugar coat my reply.

Personally I don't think it is worth training an ineffective version of VT just for the eventuality of a family member throwing a punch. It's also not worth saying you agree before going on to disagree strongly. It's just a waste of typing and reading time.

I am genuinely happy that so many people are training a form of wing chun that closely resembles my description of WSL VT. It means that we can safely discuss things in more detail without fear of misunderstanding and hurt feelings.