Terminology distinction?

[KPM]

Some who didn't learn the system in full went looking elsewhere for answers, often to other Southern CMAs, to see how similar terminology is used there and then fill their gaps and justify their methods. Saves face, they reckon.

And I'm certain this (LSDD in VT) has been explained to these guys a number of times here. Why do they still seem confused as if they've never had it spelled out before?

Explanations often get lost within the drama of long contentious threads. Seldom have either you or Guy simply just explained something without it having to be drawn out of you in an argument. So, thank you for the current straight-forward answer to the question. You see, I did learn both. I learned the one arm version as the best expression, but I also learned that it applied to both arms. I did not learn the 2nd half of the Kuen Kit that you mentioned, so thanks for that!

 

[guy b]

Explanations often get lost within the drama of long contentious threads. Seldom have either you or Guy simply just explained something without it having to be drawn out of you in an argument. So, thank you for the current straight-forward answer to the question. You see, I did learn both. I learned the one arm version as the best expression, but I also learned that it applied to both arms. I did not learn the 2nd half of the Kuen Kit that you mentioned, so thanks for that!

I think this ground has been covered before in quite a lot of detail, for example see this thread.

But it is nice to hear that the message has been received.

In the system that I do the single arm always contains both attack and defence function, no matter what is happening with the other arm.

 

[LFJ]

and means the single arm always contains attack and defence function, no matter what is happening with the other arm

Right. So, say an auxiliary action is needed, e.g. paak-da, LSDD (in VT) doesn't refer to the two arms working together, but still to the dual-function of the striking/neutralizing arm always in play should further obstruction be on its attacking line. It's always there.

 

[guy b]

Right. So, say an auxiliary action is needed, e.g. paak-da, LSDD (in VT) doesn't refer to the two arms working together, but still to the dual-function of the striking/neutralizing arm always in play should further obstruction be on its attacking line. It's always there.

Yes, very well stated

 

[LFJ]

I learned the one arm version as the best expression, but I also learned that it applied to both arms.

The problem I see with applying it to two-arm actions is what I said about things being used out of order and confusing VT fighting strategy...

So, auxiliary actions (e.g.; paak; jat) could be seen as valid first responses, but that wouldn't be simple, direct, or efficient, and would be seen as arm-chasing in VT.

Worse though, would be remedial actions (e.g.; bong; laap; biu), normally used to recover from disadvantageous positions where primary and auxiliary actions aren't possible, jumping all the way up to primary position.

Not only is this not simple, direct, or efficient either, but it would be extreme arm-chasing and very dangerous.

 

[guy b]

I think also important to recognise that not applying LSDD is just not as effective and doesn't allow you to fight as well. You get punched in the face more often, you lose attacking effectiveness. Percentages go down, failure goes up. Messes up the whole strategy

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think this ground has been covered before in quite a lot of detail, for example see this thread.

But it is nice to hear that the message has been received.

In the system that I do the single arm always contains both attack and defence function, no matter what is happening with the other arm.

I'm curious about this concept. If the second arm is performing some auxiliary function that provides the defense, how is the single arm both attacking and defending? Or is it a matter of keeping the potential for both in that single arm?

 

[wckf92]

I'm curious about this concept. If the second arm is performing some auxiliary function that provides the defense, how is the single arm both attacking and defending? Or is it a matter of keeping the potential for both in that single arm?

Has to do with intent, shape, elbow position & pressure etc... not to mention having properly trained feet/footwork/structure to support what the arm is trying to accomplish.
Got any WC'ers down your way you could explore this with?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Has to do with intent, shape, elbow position & pressure etc... not to mention having properly trained feet/footwork/structure to support what the arm is trying to accomplish.
Got any WC'ers down your way you could explore this with?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

None that I know of. But a bit of investigation might find some.

To your response, so the principle is maintained by keeping the functional ability (the potential) in the "single" arm, even if it isn't having to perform both functions at that point, because an auxiliary action by the second arm has performed one of them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

@guy b I'm looking to get some clarification on a point, because I think you and I may have misunderstood each others' posts. You said earlier in this thread that deflecting and redirection weren't separate actions in VT. In the videos you posted here, I see both people using deflection (not so much redirection) at times when they are not attacking. Help me understand the distinction.

 

[wckf92]

None that I know of. But a bit of investigation might find some.

To your response, so the principle is maintained by keeping the functional ability (the potential) in the "single" arm, even if it isn't having to perform both functions at that point, because an auxiliary action by the second arm has performed one of them.

One possible example:
WC contains a shapes which 'wedge', or 'disperse' or 'sink' or...etc etc... imagine one of your arms doing this...with a fist at the end of it...while punching a dude in the chicklets.
The trained elbow (position, and pressure) accomplishes the defense while enroute to its offense. Other hand 'wu sao' is waiting in reserve...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

One possible example:
WC contains a shapes which 'wedge', or 'disperse' or 'sink' or...etc etc... imagine one of your arms doing this...with a fist at the end of it...while punching a dude in the chicklets.
The trained elbow (position, and pressure) accomplishes the defense while enroute to its offense. Other hand 'wu sao' is waiting in reserve...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Right. I understand that part. I was referring to an earlier exchange with Guy B. He stated (not a quote, my understanding of his comment) that the "single hand" is always both attacking and defending, even when the other hand is performing an auxiliary action that defends. If that auxiliary action is defending, there's a reasonable chance the "single hand" has nothing left to defend (its path to target is now clear), so how is the concept of performing both functions maintained? I know it can do both, but in this case it has nothing left to defend, so how do you maintain the principle in this case of having the single hand do both? Is it maintained in keeping the potential for both in that one hand, or is there something I'm missing?

I've always been intrigued by this dual-function hand principle. We use it sparingly in NGA - I suspect it shows up in every art somewhere - but it's so much more prevalent here.

 

[wckf92]

He stated (not a quote, my understanding of his comment) that the "single hand" is always both attacking and defending, even when the other hand is performing an auxiliary action that defends. If that auxiliary action is defending, there's a reasonable chance the "single hand" has nothing left to defend (its path to target is now clear), so how is the concept of performing both functions maintained? I know it can do both, but in this case it has nothing left to defend, so how do you maintain the principle in this case of having the single hand do both? Is it maintained in keeping the potential for both in that one hand, or is there something I'm missing?
.

I'm not sure what others call it (what you're asking about), but it's sometimes referred to as a 'sleeping' hand. Many WC'ers do it. It is not at all desirable.

Both hands must remain 'awake' and in 'attack' mode...forward forward forward.

(Btw...sent you a pm)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[LFJ]

@gpseymour

Try not to think so much about the opponent's arms and what you may or may not be doing to them.

The idea is to dominate space through attack, so as to not need to think and be reactive.

An auxiliary action doesn't "defend" like a reactive block, but helps to clear obstructions as part of our proactive attack.

The striking arm is also capturing space as it attacks. So, whether further obstruction should appear or the way is free, it is automatically "defending" by taking space/ clearing the line while attacking center.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

@gpseymour

Try not to think so much about the opponent's arms and what you may or may not be doing to them.

The idea is to dominate space through attack, so as to not need to think and be reactive.

An auxiliary action doesn't "defend" like a reactive block, but helps to clear obstructions as part of our proactive attack.

The striking arm is also capturing space as it attacks. So, whether further obstruction should appear or the way is free, it is automatically "defending" by taking space/ clearing the line while attacking center.

Ah! That last point is the one I was looking for. So the approach is the same whether there's anything to clear or not - a consistent use of the principle, so if an unexpected obstruction makes its way in, the striking arm has captured that space and/or will clear it.

Thanks!

 

[LFJ]

Ah! That last point is the one I was looking for. So the approach is the same whether there's anything to clear or not - a consistent use of the principle, so if an unexpected obstruction makes its way in, the striking arm has captured that space and/or will clear it.

Thanks!

Yes, that's the primary idea. Always present. Non-thinking, simple, direct, efficient, etc..