Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory

[LFJ]

to you only PB seems to be a true student... Even Gary Lam is lower on the totem pole to you and LFJ.

That there's a goddamned lie!

KPM tried that sh!t before too. Sowing discord is his thing.

All I've ever said about GLWC is that it is a modified system from what WSL taught, which GL openly admits.

And I have stated many times that WSL had multiple longterm students who share PB's understanding of the system. PB is only the most well-known and prolific.

So, if you'd kindly piss off with the lies trying to sow discord or somehow discredit us when reasoned argument fails you...

 

[KPM]

That there's a goddamned lie!

KPM tried that sh!t before too. Sowing discord is his thing.
...

Sounds like someone is excited and angry. I told you that I wasn't the only one that had formed that impression by the way you post! I'm not the one "sowing discord." I invited you both to try and make a more convincing presentation of your belief all in one place so it would be easier to follow. But you both chose not to do that and ended up with the "same ole thing" as we have all come to expect from you.

 

[LFJ]

Sounds like someone is excited and angry. I told you that I wasn't the only one that had formed that impression by the way you post! I'm not the one "sowing discord."

Well, you idiots need to quote me if you're gonna start making such slanderous accusations.

I invited you both to try and make a more convincing presentation of your belief all in one place so it would be easier to follow. But you both chose not to do that and ended up with the "same ole thing" as we have all come to expect from you.

You dodged the opportunity to have the technical discussion, just like Juany did.

 

[KPM]

Well, you idiots need to quote me if you're gonna start making such slanderous accusations.



.

So now I'm an "idiot" as well as a liar, a troll, and a "mentally deficient" person? You guys are on a roll!

 

[guy b]

How dare you not put your points in a separate thread to please KPM. It isn't like we have had enough threads on this topic or anything.

 

[Juany118]

I don't the answer that one. It's like the question, "what came first, the chicken or the egg? Or maybe it's one of the things where it flows both ways.

I can see the techniques creating strategy, but I can also see the strategy creating techniques. If my strategy requires that I take someone down to the ground then I design a technique that will allow me to use that strategy.

If I have a take down technique then I can use that technique to create a strategy. It would be like me having the conversation "I have these fighting skills, what will be the best strategy that takes advantage of my skill sets.

I am just speaking from the lense of my education, nothing more or less. In my study to be a History teacher intellectually and then a soldier and a LEO practically, tactics is the unit/individual methods used operationally to accomplish the strategy. Now outside of those worlds are the two words sometimes used interchangeably? Sure. But my co-workers call me Sheldon sometimes and my wife "fffing Mr. Spock"

A strategy is broad strokes. Think mindset and overall goals. So in your takedown technique example, it provides a new tool, thus tactic to achieve the overall strategy. It takes a huge leap for a tool to change tactics and thus inform strategy though. Think 18th century through 19th century warfare, the era that is referred to as the age of Napoleonic Tactics. They remained firmly entrenched (pun intended) until technology jumped clearly ahead in WWI with the mess that was trench warfare. Even the slaughters that were our Civil War and that of the Franco-Prussian war weren't quite enough to get war planners to change mindsets when it came to tactics. To continue the analogy if you had NO knowledge of takedowns at all, learning to execute them could influence tactics enough to create new strategies but if it is simply a new takedown, then all it does is give you a knew tactical tool to achieve existing strategies. Think this way, one element of the strategy of modern warfare is achieving air superiority. The fact that today aircraft can launch missiles beyond the horizon hasn't changed that BUT the introduction of effective combat aircraft added air superiority to the strategic playbook.

Like I said, while embarrassing. Juany = Sheldon, at least I own it lol.

 

[LFJ]

@Juany118

I agree with your distinction between strategy and tactics. I've shared the same ideas on here before, many times.

But/So, I don't get why you don't understand our strategy being our goal of cutting off the opponent, closing options, and forcing errors to capitalize on, while our specific tactics to accomplish this goal are what change with the circumstances of the fight.

Yes, the strategy is imposing (the mindset and overall goal) and doesn't change, unless we're facing an armed opponent.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am just speaking from the lense of my education, nothing more or less. In my study to be a History teacher intellectually and then a soldier and a LEO practically, tactics is the unit/individual methods used operationally to accomplish the strategy. Now outside of those worlds are the two words sometimes used interchangeably? Sure. But my co-workers call me Sheldon sometimes and my wife "fffing Mr. Spock"

A strategy is broad strokes. Think mindset and overall goals. So in your takedown technique example, it provides a new tool, thus tactic to achieve the overall strategy. It takes a huge leap for a tool to change tactics and thus inform strategy though. Think 18th century through 19th century warfare, the era that is referred to as the age of Napoleonic Tactics. They remained firmly entrenched (pun intended) until technology jumped clearly ahead in WWI with the mess that was trench warfare. Even the slaughters that were our Civil War and that of the Franco-Prussian war weren't quite enough to get war planners to change mindsets when it came to tactics. To continue the analogy if you had NO knowledge of takedowns at all, learning to execute them could influence tactics enough to create new strategies but if it is simply a new takedown, then all it does is give you a knew tactical tool to achieve existing strategies. Think this way, one element of the strategy of modern warfare is achieving air superiority. The fact that today aircraft can launch missiles beyond the horizon hasn't changed that BUT the introduction of effective combat aircraft added air superiority to the strategic playbook.

Like I said, while embarrassing. Juany = Sheldon, at least I own it lol.

To follow that analogy, Juany, would it be fair to say the following?

1. If there are no takedowns AND no ground game, a principle part of the strategy would be to avoid going to the ground at all costs.
2. If we add reasonable ground defense to the mix, the strategy could adjust to avoid going to the ground unless standing up is worse.
3. If we add reasonable takedowns, the strategy could adjust to stay standing as long as it's an advantage, and take them down if that's where the advantage is.

That's an over-simplification (and no implication about any art, style, or lineage) - just wanted to follow your train of thought about how available tactics can affect strategy.

 

[Juany118]

To follow that analogy, Juany, would it be fair to say the following?

1. If there are no takedowns AND no ground game, a principle part of the strategy would be to avoid going to the ground at all costs.
2. If we add reasonable ground defense to the mix, the strategy could adjust to avoid going to the ground unless standing up is worse.
3. If we add reasonable takedowns, the strategy could adjust to stay standing as long as it's an advantage, and take them down if that's where the advantage is.

That's an over-simplification (and no implication about any art, style, or lineage) - just wanted to follow your train of thought about how available tactics can affect strategy.

That would be in line with what I am trying to explain yes.

I guess the easiest way to explain it is that the strategy is what General comes up with to win a war where as tactics are what the unit uses in a particular engagement. The strategy must account for the available tactics of the day and the tactics are in large part determined by the tools available. In our context here tools would equal techniques, not just weapons, and the strategy would be the overall methodology/philosophy that underpins the art.

Does that make more sense? I have been on vacation since Sunday so last night I admittedly had a bit more to drink than is usual lol.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I guess the easiest way to explain it is that the strategy is what General comes up with to win a war where as tactics are what the unit uses in a particular engagement. The strategy must account for the available tactics of the day and the tactics are in large part determined by the tools available. In our context here tools would equal techniques, not just weapons, and the strategy would be the overall methodology/philosophy that underpins the art.

Ok. understand that much

So to bring it back to WC a little lets say that you and I both take WC from the same teacher. We both have the same goal of winning.
As a WC student you use the strategy that you stated exists in the quote that you were discussing with the other WC Practitioners. Your strategy accounts for your strengths in WC. You are able to win 5 out of 5 fights using that strategy

As a WC student I would use a different strategy that states waiting for the right moment to strike and not forcing the attack. My strategy accounts for my strengths in WC which are different from your strengths. I'm able to win 5 out of 5 fights using my strategy about timing.

We both grow to be Sifu's. You teach WC based on your perspective of WC and according to my strengths. I teach WC based on my perspective of WC and according to my strengths

Now for the questions.
1. Did we learn the same WC?
2. Do we teach the same WC or do we teach the same WC as we understand it, from the perspective of strengths?
3. Which one is the correct WC?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Yes, the strategy is imposing (the mindset and overall goal) and doesn't change, unless we're facing an armed opponent.

What if your opponent doesn't have a gun but he's stronger, faster, and more skilled than you?

 

[LFJ]

What do you think will happen? I will switch to some other super strategy that allows me to defeat an opponent I'm weaker, slower, and less skilled than?

 

[JowGaWolf]

What do you think will happen? I will switch to some other super strategy that allows me to defeat an opponent I'm weaker, slower, and less skilled than?

I don't know that's why I asked.

 

[Juany118]

Ok. understand that much

So to bring it back to WC a little lets say that you and I both take WC from the same teacher. We both have the same goal of winning.
As a WC student you use the strategy that you stated exists in the quote that you were discussing with the other WC Practitioners. Your strategy accounts for your strengths in WC. You are able to win 5 out of 5 fights using that strategy

As a WC student I would use a different strategy that states waiting for the right moment to strike and not forcing the attack. My strategy accounts for my strengths in WC which are different from your strengths. I'm able to win 5 out of 5 fights using my strategy about timing.

We both grow to be Sifu's. You teach WC based on your perspective of WC and according to my strengths. I teach WC based on my perspective of WC and according to my strengths

Now for the questions.
1. Did we learn the same WC?
2. Do we teach the same WC or do we teach the same WC as we understand it, from the perspective of strengths?
3. Which one is the correct WC?

I would simply argue that the quote I posted is broad enough to encompass what you noted and that what you noted is really a tactic. I don't think it means to force an attack at all. While some might argue it isn't a good tactic, waiting until the opponent attacks and starting "your fight" with counters, which should create the right opportunity to strike, would be consistent. That's the thing with strategies, they have to be broad enough to account for the dynamic nature of combat. To me a change in strategy would be if suddenly instead of allowing your opponent to show you where to strike you started to allow you opponent to show you where to control him, take him to the ground and "go to work" al la BJJ.

As for your last bit, which I believe is your real point, I think not only every Sifu but every student brings themselves to the art. I essentially have 2 WC Sifus at the moment. I have the head of school and then one day a week a Provisional Master comes from the mother school and teaches. They both teach TWC but they are different in how they approach certain things.

I am also different than my semi-regular training partner and both Sifus makes jokes about it. My partner is very focused on punching, I prefer a combination of palm strikes and low kicks. The reason why they make jokes is because, until the guy became my partner, his footwork was kinda meh. He is pretty strong and an ex-lineman, so he would simply stay there, take punches and dish em out. The kicks, not only got them calling me TKD boy, but "dance instructor" because it forced him to focus on his footwork.

Edit:. Unless of course you go the route of my BJJ reference, then I think it becomes something very different, the difference has to be rather profound imo.

 

[JowGaWolf]

As for your last bit, which I believe is your real point, I think not only every Sifu but every student brings themselves to the art.

I was only trying to present the subject in a different light in order to view something from a different perspective without the need of using names of Sifus because that seems to stir up a lot of issues that go no where. First by taking a look at strategy in general (war, military, chess) then using what came out of that discussion to view strategy in fighting. I didn't have to use WC as the fighting style, any fighting system would still fit the question.

To me a change in strategy would be if suddenly instead of allowing your opponent to show you where to strike you started to allow you opponent to show you where to control him, take him to the ground and "go to work" al la BJJ.

Not sure if you saw this video, but i thought it would be a good place to put it since if falls in ling with your comment.

 

[Juany118]

I was only trying to present the subject in a different light in order to view something from a different perspective without the need of using names of Sifus because that seems to stir up a lot of issues that go no where. First by taking a look at strategy in general (war, military, chess) then using what came out of that discussion to view strategy in fighting. I didn't have to use WC as the fighting style, any fighting system would still fit the question.

Not sure if you saw this video, but i thought it would be a good place to put it since if falls in ling with your comment.

I think the issue is that I am a bit more compartmentalized in my view of strategy and tactics. Here is a chart I just found.

So, once in the fight you are using tactics that serve the overall strategy, not the strategy itself.

And yes I saw that video. In another thread I showed how my WC does have takedowns and Chin Na. My BJJ reference was to say if going to ground, al la BJJ, became the raison detre as it is in BJJ.

 

[guy b]

I thought you advocated a variable strategy?

 

[Juany118]

I thought you advocated a variable strategy?

I think all martial arts need a broad core strategy. It is then the tactics used in each encounter that are variable. I suppose one could argue we are talking about the same thing though, just using different language.

 

[guy b]

I think all martial arts need a broad core strategy. It is then the tactics used in each encounter that are variable. I suppose one could argue we are talking about the same thing though, just using different language.

Well actually you talked specifically about varying the VT strategic approach depending on conditions, so I wouldn't say we are talking abot the same thing at all.

The two options are that you don't understand WSL VT (despite having a really great teacher), or that you got confiused about what the word strategy means, which would make the enourmous verbage you generate on the subject a bit laughable.

Would you like me to quote you again?

 

[Juany118]

Well actually you talked specifically about varying the VT strategic approach depending on conditions, so I wouldn't say we are talking abot the same thing at all.

The two options are that you don't understand WSL VT (despite having a really great teacher), or that you got confiused about what the word strategy means, which would make the enourmous verbage you generate on the subject a bit laughable.

Would you like me to quote you again?

Please do because you are the one who doesnt understand what strategy means and that is a big part of the problem. I have quoted numerous times the definition of strategy and the differences between strategy and tactics. These are the same principles taught in Military and Police academies, even business schools today.

Tactics will change from fight to fight, irl, and there is no denying that.
-The environment will dictate changes (due to say bad footing if you are fighting in mud). Heck wearing heavy winter closing can be a help(armor) and hinderances (limiting movement and speed).
-The size and aggressiveness of your opponent will be a contributing factor.
-Is the fight starting after you chased the guy 3 blocks and hopped 2 fences? how good is your conditioning?
-Is your goal to put his lights out, simply get them to stop an assault or to restrain/detain them with minimal force?

Now if you are always just practicing in the school these realities may not occurred to you but this is the reality of conflict.

You are confabulating strategy and tactics, they are not the same thing. You can keep insisting they are until the cows come home but either the basis of documented martial theory going back to the Battle of Meggido in 1457 BC is wrong OR you are wrong.

I think the answer is obvious.