Terminology distinction?

[guy b]

Show me where there's no defense built into VT

I didn't say that. That was why I said you were talking nonsense.

 

[guy b]

to really learn to use it, rather than simply repeating the movements, the "why" is necessary. IMO

The training method of VT trains VT. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or even to think about it much in order to learn it. It is pretty simple in terms of mental effort. Hard in terms of physical effort

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

Actually, Phobius is making perfect sense. You're being obstinate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I didn't say that. That was why I said you were talking nonsense.

I talked about the defense being built in, and you said I was talking nonsense. What about my comment, then, was nonsense?

 

[wckf92]

Well.......didn't take this thread long to derail...once guy b got involved hahahahahahahahaha

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[guy b]

I talked about the defense being built in, and you said I was talking nonsense. What about my comment, then, was nonsense?

You said "show me where there is no defence built into VT"

I never made this claim

Therefore your question is nonsensical

 

[guy b]

Actually, Phobius is making perfect sense. You're being obstinate.

Phobius said this:

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

Which doesn't follow from what I wrote, which was this:

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 teach it you need to understand it, but to do you just do

That you don't need to understand VT theory in order to learn VT does not mean that I personally don't understand VT theory. It is just a non-sequitur by Phobius, as usual.

Therefore Phobius' argument is not logical. This trend of disagreeing with logic because you want me to be wrong is not flattering to people here.

 

[guy b]

Well.......didn't take this thread long to derail...once guy b got involved hahahahahahahahaha

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

I don't think it has derailed. People are angry because they are wrong. Not a surprise, perfectly normal.

 

[wckf92]

...because they are wrong. Not a surprise, perfectly normal.

...hint, hint...stomp...stomp

Seriously dude...I get it, but gawd...must be nice to exist in a world where the population is 'one'...i.e....you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[guy b]

...hint, hint...stomp...stomp

Seriously dude...I get it, but gawd...must be nice to exist in a world where the population is 'one'...i.e....you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Popularity on this forum isn't particularly important to me. I just hate to see VT (and logical argument) degraded to such an extent. If people are doing it in the hope of fitting in and making friends on this forum then I would say that is pretty sad.

 

[wckf92]

Popularity on this forum isn't particularly important to me. I just hate to see VT (and logical argument) degraded to such an extent. If people are doing it in the hope of fitting in and making friends on this forum then I would say that is pretty sad.

...deep breath's dude...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Danny T]

[QUOTE="Danny T] as I stated; "...through the placement of another attack."
But that doesn't answer the question.

It does answer the question. It's called attacking centre, or VT. There isn't any need to call it something special because it is a consequence of attacking with VT, not a goal in itself.[/QUOTE]
Got it...Just VT.
That really explains "What term do you use to describe an attack being prevented through the placement of another attack."
Would you use the same term, VT, to describe such when you are in a situation where it isn't VT?

 

[Juany118]

For me...deflection is causing a change of direction whereas a redirection is to change the path of something for the use of it differently.

^^^^
(If I am understanding @Danny T correctly)
Basically (imo), deflection is simply "make it not hurt me" and this may incidentally create an opening etc. Redirection implies deeper intent, such as setting up a wrist lock, takedown etc.

 

[guy b]

That really explains "What term do you use to describe an attack being prevented through the placement of another attack."

Lin siu dai da

 

[Phobius]

Phobius said this:

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?

Which doesn't follow from what I wrote, which was this:

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 you don't need to understand VT theory in order to learn VT does not mean that I personally don't understand VT theory. It is just a non-sequitur by Phobius, as usual.

Therefore Phobius' argument is not logical. This trend of disagreeing with logic because you want me to be wrong is not flattering to people here.

Logic has no part in your discussion.

You are being asked what term you would use to describe the defense in your attacks.

Given that you provided nothing but comments stating that there is no need to understand the defense in the attacks, this leads to the conclusion that you lack such understanding. This on the term that you are asked how you would describe the defense and saying there is no need to understand such defense is more along the line of saying "I do not know" rather than answering with "I will not say" or "it is best described as ...".

So once more being logical is that you have no understanding since it was such an important point for you to raise despite noone asking you the question whether or not this was information you would need to know if training VT. After all a logical thought process would make you realize quickly that for a forum discussion the term is crucial for understanding what you are referring to. Do not forget, you could be way off and have a complete misunderstanding of VT. How would we know if you can not even explain in terms what you are seeking.

So being logical is not really what you were being and as such keep that term out of this discussion. It does not suit you well.

Those comments I refer to where you for no apparent reason avoid answering a direct and simple question were:

as I stated; ...through the placement of another attack."
But that doesn't answer the question.

It does answer the question. It's called attacking centre, or VT. There isn't any need to call it something special because it is a consequence of attacking with VT, not a goal in itself.

Illogical statement. Defending while attacking is a goal, it is not an unintentional aspect of the movement. In fact it is the very foundation of your movements.

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

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.

Illogical statement yet again. Defense within the attack is what was asked about, so saying such defense does not exist is illogical given that you already said it exists but does not require understanding. See below.

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

You were asked about term of defense as it is built into attack. You are saying what has already been stated. Simply because you are talking around yourself.

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.

And you can not answer question being asked and instead talk in circles. This lead me to a logical conclusion that you might not have the understanding.

The training method of VT trains VT. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or even to think about it much in order to learn it. It is pretty simple in terms of mental effort. Hard in terms of physical effort

Is this what you are being taught by your sifu, or is this your own experience? Do you not know the way defense within attack works? If you do, how can you know for sure? After all the guy telling you this already knows all about the defense within the movements, and you know it as well? Does that not mean that all parties you trust are untrusted sources since this is a statement they can not prove.

After all, if you do the movements in such a way that it works as an integrated defense... does this not mean you at that point have grasped the defense built into the attacks? This would render your comment invalid.

So I finish yet again by saying, remove logic as a term in your text. We are not having a logical discussion here since there is nothing logical going on in this thread.

 

[Danny T]

Lin siu dai da

But that term or saying denotes much more than an attack being prevented through the placement of another attack.
Or do you not use gum sao, lap sao, huen sao, or other type functions?

 

[wtxs]

But that term or saying denotes much more than an attack being prevented through the placement of another attack.
Or do you not use gum sao, lap sao, huen sao, or other type functions?

Don't you know by now he does VT ... only need punch! All of the above are for chasing hand/arm.

 

[guy b]

Given that you provided nothing but comments stating that there is no need to understand the defense in the attacks, this leads to the conclusion that you lack such understanding.

It only leads to this conclusion if your thinking process is faulty. Thankfully, since you made this mistake right at the start, I can spare myself the need to read the rest of your enormous and probably tedious post

 

[guy b]

But that term or saying denotes much more than an attack being prevented through the placement of another attack.
Or do you not use gum sao, lap sao, huen sao, or other type functions?

Not sure what secondary actions have to do with lin siu dai da?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Popularity on this forum isn't particularly important to me. I just hate to see VT (and logical argument) degraded to such an extent. If people are doing it in the hope of fitting in and making friends on this forum then I would say that is pretty sad.

Actually, you're missing the "logic" in your "logical argument". Saying the defense is included, so you don't have to understand defense is nonsense. If that is true, you can only ever repeat exactly the motions you were taught, because you can't synthesize new movements (to react to variations of situations) unless you follow the principles, which requires understanding.

You either don't understand this, or you simply like the dogma of "attack only, don't defend" so much you can't even talk about defense.