Siu Lim Tau Comparison

[Nobody Important]

I'm not sure why you think so, unless, inferiority complex?

I didn't say my strategy is superior to yours, only that it is impossible from the guard you described. So, we must be very different.

Given that I don't know how your method works, it could be better, for all I know. Don't be too hard on yourself.

Lol, no complex. Just pointing out not to judge what you don't understand. The strategy you provided earlier had most of the elements of mine. As I stated before the tag lines are simply headings in which the strategic formula is categorized. It's just broken up for ease of learning. Also we have several guard positions, all work within the context of the strategy and are applicable to other strategies (in part) as well. No the strategy isn't exactly like yours because we also employ Kum Na & Sut Gow, so some aspects are different, otherwise it wouldn't be cohesive. It probably wouldn't work well with how your system is designed, though some parts would be familiar and vice versa. By no means is it superior to anything, it is specific to YCW WC only.

 

[LFJ]

Lol, no complex. Just pointing out not to judge what you don't understand.

Not sure how you are perceiving judgement in my post without a complex of some sort, or trying to be offended.

The strategy you provided earlier had most of the elements of mine.

Any description of strategy will be rather broad without understanding tactics. It doesn't really give one an idea of how it would manifest in reality, or the specific tactics used to achieve it.

We cut into the opponent's attacks and cut off their escape routes while pressuring in with simultaneous attack and defense actions.

This may sound broad and relatable to you, but it is impossible from the crab guard. Mayweather makes the guard work, but his strategy is obviously very different from VT. It's more defensive. Cover then counter. As you described in the other thread.

That's not to say better or worse. Just very different.

 

[Nobody Important]

Not sure how you are perceiving judgement in my post without a complex of some sort, or trying to be offended.



Any description of strategy will be rather broad without understanding tactics. It doesn't really give one an idea of how it would manifest in reality, or the specific tactics used to achieve it.

We cut into the opponent's attacks and cut off their escape routes while pressuring in with simultaneous attack and defense actions.

This may sound broad and relatable to you, but it is impossible from the crab guard. Mayweather makes the guard work, but his strategy is obviously very different from VT. It's more defensive. Cover then counter. As you described in the other thread.

That's not to say better or worse. Just very different.

You're judging the strategy by the EWBIHB guard only, as stated other guards are used. Differing situations call for appropriate approaches, various guards allow for this. Offensive & defensive strategy are required. Not all situations can be approached in the manner you described because of grappling and throwing methods used by the opponent. Also for YCW WC pressuring with simultaneous attack and defense is just as relatable to a slanting bridge & strike as it is to "Crane Seizes Fox" (throw) or "Eagle Claws the Ground" (choke). It's all in the approach. Our strategy is developed with a broader situational scope in mind.

 

[LFJ]

You're judging the strategy by the EWBIHB guard only, as stated other guards are used.

I made no qualitative judgement whatsoever, and I don't know your strategy or what other guards you use.

I'm simply stating that our strategy can't be employed from a crab guard.

Not all situations can be approached in the manner you described because of grappling and throwing methods used by the opponent.

I, and others, have used the VT strategy with success against people trying to close in to grapple and throw.

Also for YCW WC pressuring with simultaneous attack and defense is just as relatable to a slanting bridge & strike as it is to "Crane Seizes Fox" (throw) or "Eagle Claws the Ground" (choke).

What is a slanting bridge?

 

[dudewingchun]

Can't you guys just make videos demonstrating these things?

 

[Nobody Important]

I made no qualitative judgement whatsoever, and I don't know your strategy or what other guards you use.

I'm simply stating that our strategy can't be employed from a crab guard.



I, and others, have used the VT strategy with success against people trying to close in to grapple and throw.



What is a slanting bridge?

I use "crab guard" because I am comfortable with it and its versatile, but its not the only guard I use. Nor do I limit myself to the strategy employed by it. Versatility through the ability to adapt is fundamental to YCW WC. Offense and defense are necessary apart from the simultaneous offense and defense strategy. It may be the most employed and the one to strive for but realistically the opponent may be more skillful and a new strategic approach is necessary to adapt and overcome.

Crab guard is irrelevant, you must have some form of cover and counter in your system, don't you? No matter how good you may be, eventually your structure will get broken or strategy negated, and the opponent will get in putting you on defense.

A good wrestler will get in, you can't always punch your way out, MMA has proved it time and time again. Wing Chun does have strategy specific to dealing with some basic wrestling counters. It obviously isn't as detailed or comprehensive as BJJ but, none the less, useful enough to help re-establish. I've no doubt you have specific tactics within the strategy to deal with those that get in.

Slanting Bridge is a side body Tan Sau with simultaneous punch.

 

[LFJ]

you must have some form of cover and counter in your system, don't you?

Cover then counter as a basic strategy? No.

No matter how good you may be, eventually your structure will get broken or strategy negated, and the opponent will get in putting you on defense.

We have methods of recovery that don't involve just covering up.

Wing Chun does have strategy specific to dealing with some basic wrestling counters. It obviously isn't as detailed or comprehensive as BJJ but, none the less, useful enough to help re-establish.

BJJ is not very detailed or comprehension in standup defense.

Slanting Bridge is a side body Tan Sau with simultaneous punch.

What part of that does "bridge" refer to?

 

[Nobody Important]

Cover then counter as a basic strategy? No.



We have methods of recovery that don't involve just covering up.



BJJ is not very detailed or comprehension in standup defense.



What part of that does "bridge" refer to?

There will be times in a real fight when cover & counter is necessary. In YCW WC it is covered within the strategy.

Covering done properly is used to lure, exploit and open when other means aren't possible. Not just withstand a beating.

Because their strategy depends on taking you down not keeping you upright. Learning to counter take downs and getting back up are necessary in YCW WC.

Generically, the forearm, but in YCW WC the term bridge can also refer to other things like proximity to a line of attack, amongst other things.

 

[LFJ]

There will be times in a real fight when cover & counter is necessary. In YCW WC it is covered within the strategy.

Covering done properly is used to lure, exploit and open when other means aren't possible. Not just withstand a beating.

Cover then counter is not part of the core VT strategy.

Generically, the forearm, but in YCW WC the term bridge can also refer to other things like proximity to a line of attack, amongst other things.

What specifically does it refer to in your taan-da example?

 

[Nobody Important]

Cover then counter is not part of the core VT strategy.



What specifically does it refer to in your taan-da example?

Is it part of the strategy at all?

Its a temporary connection to the opponent used to facilitate an application.

 

[LFJ]

Is it part of the strategy at all?

There are cover ideas in Biu-ji, but that is outside the VT strategy when you are in terrible position to begin with or things have failed badly, and the idea is to recover to VT strategy or at least cut losses and survive.

Its a temporary connection to the opponent used to facilitate an application.

That's what I was wondering, because I said "bridge" in our terminology is an attack line, not arm contact, and you said yours is the same. But this sounds like bridge = arm contact.

 

[Nobody Important]

There are cover ideas in Biu-ji, but that is outside the VT strategy when you are in terrible position to begin with or things have failed badly, and the idea is to recover to VT strategy or at least cut losses and survive.



That's what I was wondering, because I said "bridge" in our terminology is an attack line, not arm contact, and you said yours is the same. But this sounds like bridge = arm contact.

Yes, cover is always used to regain when things have failed. You do not go into conflict using full cover in YCW WC. The EWBIHB guard has many permutations that allows for simultaneous attack and defense, not unlike the crab guard of boxing, it can be used offensively. You are correct that it is most often used defensively. I like it because it lends itself well to grappling, which I like to do. Your method doesn't employ grappling as part of your strategy so this guard wouldn't be for you.

Like I said earlier bridge can be used to describe proximity to position of attack, but it is also used to describe physical contact. So bridge in YCW WC is both physical & metaphysical. To avoid confusion, generically I describe any physical contact with the opponent as bridge (hand, forearm, shin etc) & distance from opponent & angle relative to line of attack as the inside line, though in reality it is a representational bridge.

 

[LFJ]

The EWBIHB guard has many permutations that allows for simultaneous attack and defense, not unlike the crab guard of boxing, it can be used offensively. You are correct that it is most often used defensively.

Okay. My point, though, was to say our methods of simultaneous attack and defense are functions of a single arm (lin-siu-daai-da principle) and two such arms working in rotation. Not possible from a crab guard.

Like I said earlier bridge can be used to describe proximity to position of attack, but it is also used to describe physical contact. So bridge in YCW WC is both physical & metaphysical. To avoid confusion, generically I describe any physical contact with the opponent as bridge (hand, forearm, shin etc) & distance from opponent & angle relative to line of attack as the inside line, though in reality it is a representational bridge.

How is this definition of "bridge" (distance & angle) not "position"?

How is the other definition of "bridge" (temporary connection to the opponent used to facilitate an application) not "control"?

Position, Bridge, Control, Hit and Return.

There seems to be some blur between your first three concepts.

 

[Nobody Important]

Okay. My point, though, was to say our methods of simultaneous attack and defense are functions of a single arm (lin-siu-daai-da principle) and two such arms working in rotation. Not possible from a crab guard.



How is this definition of "bridge" (distance & angle) not "position"?

How is the other definition of "bridge" (temporary connection to the opponent used to facilitate an application) not "control"?

Position, Bridge, Control, Hit and Return.

There seems to be some blur between your first three concepts.

The labeling is generic not literal. I'll try to explain in simplest terms.

Inside each section are specific tactics, concepts etc. Things can get confusing, especially when concepts are abstract. To minimize this the strategic formula was labled as Position, Bridge, Control, Hit, Return as a way of helping students understand that they always need to maintain a superior Position through Bridging the opponent to Control them via a Hit/Lock/Throw. Return/Repeat as necessary.

 

[LFJ]

they always need to maintain a superior Position through Bridging the opponent to Control them via a Hit/Lock/Throw. Return/Repeat as necessary.

Based on your non-singular definition of Bridge, it could be indistinguishable from Position or Control, the latter of which is now equivalent to Hit as well?

You're right. Things can get confusing when concepts are abstract, maybe too abstract.

I'll repeat my definitions again to compare;

Position = ours in relation to attack lines
Bridge = attack lines
Control = of space to take or open attack lines
Hit = via the attack lines
Return = to take or open next attack lines

VT fighting is basically "Cham-kiu", seeking the attack lines.

 

[KPM]

What part of that does "bridge" refer to?

He is doing it again NI. He knows perfectly well what you mean by "bridge" because this has been the subject of another contentious thread in the past. He is leading you on for another "gotcha" kind of moment, as his is typical pattern.

 

[KPM]

And I will point out LFJ is now up to post #435 in this thread that was about comparing SNT forms across lineages. He and Guy have mentioned there being a "little idea" at the core of the WSLVT SNT form, but haven't yet really shared with anyone what that "little idea" actually is....even after asking probing questions of others to get them to share about their own system. Instead, LFJ posted to take the thread in a completely different direction and distract everyone from this point.

 

[LFJ]

He is doing it again NI. He knows perfectly well what you mean by "bridge" because this has been the subject of another contentious thread in the past. He is leading you on for another "gotcha" kind of moment, as his is typical pattern.

Oh, plug it, would ya?

I don't know NI's system, and as we found out, he has more than one definition of Bridge, and it's not the same as yours. Wouldn't have know that without asking, would we?

And I will point out LFJ is now up to post #435 in this thread

And I will point out that KPM is now up to post 1,963 on this forum, and the number of those sharing any depth of information can be counted on one hand.

 

[anerlich]

BJJ is not very detailed or comprehension in standup defense.

Really? It still managed OK in the early UFCs and Pride against some of the self-proclaimed baddest standup fighters on the planet.

 

[LFJ]

Really? It still managed OK in the early UFCs and Pride against some of the self-proclaimed baddest standup fighters on the planet.

That was not a qualitative judgement, mind you.