Terminology distinction?

[guy b]

Good way to end up with what is known in HEMA as a "double kill."

VT is not a tit for tat system. It works by attacking, not by defending

 

[Phobius]

If you attack with VT you don't need to think of blocking and moving, redirecting and deflecting. You just attack

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.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you attack with VT you don't need to think of blocking and moving, redirecting and deflecting. You just attack

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.

 

[guy b]

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.

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.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

VT is not a tit for tat system. It works by attacking, not by defending

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.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

That's overreaching a principle. You have to understand the defense built into your attack.

 

[guy b]

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.

VT is attack, defence is built into attack and doesn't need conscious attention. This is why VT works

 

[guy b]

That's overreaching a principle. You have to understand the defense built into your attack.

Needs no conscious attention

 

[guy b]

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.

Complete misunderstanding of VT

 

[Gerry Seymour]

VT is attack, defence is built into attack and doesn't need conscious attention. This is why VT works

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.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Complete misunderstanding of VT

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.

 

[guy b]

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.

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.

 

[guy b]

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.

you are taking nonsense now

 

[Touch Of Death]

I don't use either term. Both sound like arm-chasing tactics.

Deflection = parry the arm.
Redirection = guide the arm.

I can do this while just standing there, ya know. The punches just seem to come to me, in these parts.

 

[Touch Of Death]

If you attack with VT you don't need to think of blocking and moving, redirecting and deflecting. You just attack

Of, of course....

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

VT is attack, defence is built into attack and doesn't need conscious attention. This is why VT works

So if your opponent chain punches at you, you just chain punches him back.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

you are taking nonsense now

No, I've asked you to clarify your last statement, which sounded like nonsense to me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

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.

 

[Phobius]

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.

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?

 

[guy b]

So given your comment in quote this means that you do not know anything as to why you do what you do.

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.