Terminology distinction?
- Thread starter wckf92
- Start date
I agree. If you attack then your opponents attacks just vanish. They are neither redirected nor deflected... they just evaporate in the presence of VT.
If that were true, you'd only study "attack". Those other terms are how you understand the result of the attack. If you don't pay attention to that, you're acting randomly, and I doubt you do that.
Not needing to think about the attacks of your opponent doesn't amount to them not existing, but in VT defence is inside attack, so you just attack. Thinking about defending is not VT.
All styles include defense. Just because the primary aim is attack doesn't mean there's no defense. If you don't defend, then you ignore the incoming punch and let it hit where it may.
That's overreaching a principle. You have to understand the defense built into your attack.
VT is attack, defence is built into attack and doesn't need conscious attention. This is why VT works
Needs no conscious attention
Complete misunderstanding of VT
I understand that point, but that doesn't mean you should never look at it when learning the art. Understanding the defense built into the attack is key to understanding why you move the way you do. Without the why, there is no understanding.
Complete oversimplification of your point. Show me where there's no defense built into VT. It's part of the movement. Just because it's not a separate thing doesn't mean it's not a principle of the movement. It's why you move the way you do.
To be honest you can learn VT and understand not very much of how it works. The method is mostly about entraining particular behaviors. To teacj it you need to understand it, but to do you just do.
you are taking nonsense now
Of, of course....
So if your opponent chain punches at you, you just chain punches him back.
No, I've asked you to clarify your last statement, which sounded like nonsense to me.
That can be said of any art. However, to really learn to use it, rather than simply repeating the movements, the "why" is necessary. IMO, it's more important to understand the "why" eventually, than to remember the movements.
The question was not whether or not you understand how it works. It was a question about deflection and redirection. So given your comment in quote this means that you do not know anything as to why you do what you do. Given that you are unable to understand how there is a defense built into your movement?
IS this something you are taught by your sifu? That you do not need to understand what you are doing, only do as they say?
You appear not to be thinking logically. Or maybe it is that English not first language thing again. I can't argue against something I didn't say.
