"No Outside Game," or Another Thread About Hybrid Arts

[Hazardi172]

It might not be in VT, but what if your opponent isn't playing your game?

In fighting the opponent trys to play their game and we play ours. Our game is about making the opponent dance to our tune.

 

[Hazardi172]

It's not a matter of standing in one place ("an ideal place to stand"), but of the ideal range from which to execute a given strike.

There is no ideal range from which to strike. Thinking of fighting in this way leads to one dimensional and predictable movement patterns. Range is variable and we strike from very close to far out. It depends what the opponent shows us.

 

[Hazardi172]

What about untrained folks? Or folks from other styles or systems, I know it's not the goal for VT, but do you think that other will clinch you? and what happens if they do? you freeze up because you never trained on it?

By the way, my question wasn't to put you on the spot or anything it was a serious question if you have trained or experienced other systems.



Ok but did you also trained the striking on a Kickboxer? Muay Thay guy? Judo guys? Or the streetbrawler? Or did you only trained VT vs VT?

VT doesn't do grappling so if you are grappling then no longer the place for VT. Use something else if you have it, or use emergency techniques to regain VT.

Testing should be against as many different people as possible. Variety and challenge is key. There is no sense in making it easy for yourself.

 

[Hazardi172]

What that means is that the History Teacher that said "no" to teaching became a Recon Scout in the US Army. He then has spent 19 years as a police officer in a town/city where fighting with someone to effect an arrest is basically a weekly event.

BDU is the "old school" term for the US Army Uniform. The Police in the US are the "thin blue line" between civilation and chaos. That is my perspective. Hence BDU and Blue.

Arresting is quite a bit different from fighting.

Does this mean the way I fight is the best? Nope.

But I know how a fight progresses. That I have sweet spots and weak spots. Anyone who is planning on having to fight (and I hope most don't) need to think critically about those "spots" because that is how combat works.

I don't think that perspectives from JKD are helpful in VT. VT is a much deeper system that JKD, much more comprehensive

 

[Dylan9d]

VT doesn't do grappling so if you are grappling then no longer the place for VT. Use something else if you have it, or use emergency techniques to regain VT.

Testing should be against as many different people as possible. Variety and challenge is key. There is no sense in making it easy for yourself.

That's a bit of general answer, now please answer for yourself, did you test your VT against different people? Or only against your fellow VT practitioners?

Ohw and your first bit actually states that VT is a very limited art.......

 

[Hazardi172]

I agree. So to say that you are going to do thousands or reps of a Bong/Laap/Punch cycle in training....but to also say this is not applied or used in real fighting makes no sense.

It makes sense to me, and I have explained it above. It is about creating the skill set and attributes in the body for VT

And to train thousands of reps of a form that teaches you to draw your fist back to your hip repeatedly (which may get you killed in real fight) also makes no sense.

Forms also build attributes and skill set, as well as define things like limits of movement, We don't fight as if we are doing a form.

This is why you should train the way you hope to fight.

I assume you are not a VT practitioner? The system contains testing as a major part of the learning method. We train fighting by fighting. We build and maintain attributes and skill set by training attributes and skill set.

If you are in-graining bad habits that could get you killed in a real encounter, that is a bad thing! If you are training things that you are truly going to make a point of NOT doing in a real encounter, that is inefficient. If you are spending lots of time training something that will never show up in a real encounter, then you are training a martial art but you are not training a fighting art.

I think this would only be a concern with VT if you didn't understand the purpose of the various training methodologies. The system creates people who are able to teach themselves and correct mistakes using various reference points and drills. Working on particular problems in isolation and then bringing them back into the whole for testing is how the method works.

 

[Hazardi172]

That's a bit of general answer, now please answer for yourself, did you test your VT against different people? Or only against your fellow VT practitioners?

Yes I have tested my VT against different people.

Ohw and your first bit actually states that VT is a very limited art.......

If you think so then that's ok . It doesn't include grappling, what can I say?

 

[Dylan9d]

Yes I have tested my VT against different people.



If you think so then that's ok . It doesn't include grappling, what can I say?

Well it doesn't include alot of aspects according to you because it's simply only hitting, so that's not what I think but it's mainly what I conclude out of your previous messages.

 

[wingchun100]

Why not just hit them instead?

If their punch is coming at your head?

 

[wingchun100]

That "best place" you just mentioned? That is the "sweet spot" in that moment.

Yes, sweet spots are fleeting things. It's kind of like that moment when you think the woman you really like would say "yes" if you ask her out, but if you don't do it in that split second, it's gone.

Just felt like injecting a little silliness there. Carry on!

 

[KPM]

I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I am not Guy.

Video of Philipp Bayer on the internet mostly shows him doing chi sau, lap sau and other drills. The VT drills are very important in order to build and maintain the VT attributes and habits in the body. They are therefore not directly applicable to fighting, in that we don't try to initiate drills during fighting, but they are still essential to fighting. The difficult bit in VT is gaining and maintaining the skill set. Fighting is the simple bit. All VT entails testing (fighting) as an integral part of the development process.

I wasn't talking about doing an entire drill while fighting. I was talking about the Bong/Laap/Punch cycle of technique. Is that used in fighting or not? Because your original statement suggested that it wasn't.

 

[KPM]

I don't think that perspectives from JKD are helpful in VT. VT is a much deeper system that JKD, much more comprehensive

Says someone that obviously has no concept of what JKD is!

 

[wingchun100]

Likely those who are competitive trained in multiple arts, so you won't find a pure stylist from Wing Chun (or almost anything) in MMA. Since the good coaches are focused around a few styles that have a solid track record, anyone training for MMA is likely to get a fair amount of those styles. I also get the impression that Wing Chun doesn't favor heavy punches, opting instead to overwhelm. From what I see in MMA, heavy strikes are necessary if you're going to depend upon strikes.

Not 100% true. (I know you don't train in the system, so I hope you know I did not mean that in an insulting way.) The previous school I was at taught a difference between a heavy punch and the flurry-style punches most people associate with Wing Chun.

Also, if there are really no pure styles in MMA, then it seems silly to me that so many people have latched on to the notion that Wing Chun is the only "pure" style that wouldn't work in the ring. If everyone gets a mix, then you could just as easily swap that out with ANY style name. Example: "Karate doesn't work in MMA."

 

[KPM]

In fighting the opponent trys to play their game and we play ours. Our game is about making the opponent dance to our tune. There is no ideal range from which to strike.

---These two statements certainly make it sound as if you have never done any hard sparring and no sparring against anyone other than a fellow Wing Chun classmate.


Thinking of fighting in this way leads to one dimensional and predictable movement patterns.

---No, using a fighting strategy that only seeks to land a punch is one-dimensional. Simple common sense says that there is an optimal distance or "sweet spot" to land a punch solidly and effectively on an opponent. This is the distance that doesn't require you to over-reach, nor to be crowded in so that you cannot get good extension. How are you going to land your Wing Chun punch from a distance at which you are at the end of the opponent's extended kicking leg?

Range is variable and we strike from very close to far out. It depends what the opponent shows us.

---How do you punch from "very far out"?

 

[Hazardi172]

Well it doesn't include alot of aspects according to you because it's simply only hitting, so that's not what I think but it's mainly what I conclude out of your previous messages.

I can't think of many parts of fighting other than striking, grappling and weapons. VT has striking and weapons but not grappling. I wouldn't call it limited, but also wouldn't pretend that it covers areas it doesn't. If I wanted grappling I would look somewhere else.

 

[Hazardi172]

If their punch is coming at your head?

In VT we do not block then hit- hitting provides cover

 

[Hazardi172]

I wasn't talking about doing an entire drill while fighting. I was talking about the Bong/Laap/Punch cycle of technique. Is that used in fighting or not? Because your original statement suggested that it wasn't.

No, not used in fighting, it is a drill for teaching specific things. We also don't do dan chi sau, poon sau, and so on in fighting. These are training drills. Nobody will cooperate long enough in fighting to allow them to happen- they require a cooperating partner and are mutually beneficial

 

[Hazardi172]

Says someone that obviously has no concept of what JKD is!

Ah, a JKD practitioner I assume!

From his writings I think Bruce Lee had a pretty low level understanding of VT.

 

[wingchun100]

In VT we do not block then hit- hitting provides cover

Then why are there several techniques that are called "blocks?" I'm not following.

 

[Hazardi172]

These two statements certainly make it sound as if you have never done any hard sparring and no sparring against anyone other than a fellow Wing Chun classmate.

On the contrary, the normal process of testing VT has given me a lot of insight into and respect for the strategy of VT.

No, using a fighting strategy that only seeks to land a punch is one-dimensional. Simple common sense says that there is an optimal distance or "sweet spot" to land a punch solidly and effectively on an opponent. This is the distance that doesn't require you to over-reach, nor to be crowded in so that you cannot get good extension.

Striking is not one dimensional because there are infinite variations and complexities. It is hard enough to get really good at one thing. Aiming too high might leave you good at nothing

The VT punch is very flexible in that it requires no windup, automatically covers, and can operate close and far from the body. This is why we spend a lot of time training to get better at punching. The mechanics doesn't include upper body or arm momentum and so no sweet spot exists as would be the case with (for example) a boxing punch where it is critical for impact to occur at a particular point of the punching arc.

How do you punch from "very far out"?

VT punch is a punch with the body- so of course you move your body.