WC Punch

[LFJ]

---"VT" or not? Again, you aren't answering my questions.

I said I'm not sure.

---You chastise John for describing specific scenarios, but then you won't answer a more general question that doesn't describe a scenario.

Asking how I'd use a certain tactic against a certain type of attack is a scenario, and your scenario makes no sense.

 

[Phobius]

To be honest I think LFJ is just talking about the very foundation of WC, that the special punch that only exist in VT is the same punch as done by all lineages. Meaning control the centerline you prohibit the opponent from attacking you while you punch him. In some cases you control his elbow or his arm, in other cases you are simply keeping the area guarded that in case he tries to find an angle you can quickly deflect his attack.

VT are good with punches, I do not doubt that. And there are many aspects that make controlling the centerline more complex. But those are not aspects of a special system, they are aspects of putting focus at training punches for this specific purpose. The annoying part is that LFJ and guy seems unable to live with the fact that they do not train the one true system. In fact they just train a system like many other.

Perhaps there is a need to be training the one true system in order to prove something to themselves. If that is the case then sure thing, it may be important to them.

Me personally, as I said so many times in the past. I do not think the best WC/VT system is what was created by YM. Instead I believe what we have today is far better than what we had in the 90's, 80's and so on all the way back to and beyond YM.

Reason being, we are simply evolving the systems. Knowledge is shared a lot quicker these days. Evolution is not quick, nor is all evolution good. But evolution is change and it does lead to better things. At some point in time, life will be exactly as it was in Hong Kong around and after WWII but until that time is back, a system for that timeframe is not optimal for today.

Just look at evolution of MMA, old techniques are not decided to be crap and thus removed. It is simply that all have trained the counters to old techniques so that in order to meet those counters people have trained in other old techniques to counter them. As such system is evolved to something new, and it will continue to evolve.

Pass a law to forbid walking around without heavy gloves on the street, I assure you all systems would evolve to work with the new premises. Life is not the same anymore as it was, almost everyone we meet knows half assed boxing punches. Takedowns and fighting on the ground is information that is spreading on YouTube and UFC fans. It has spread into videogames and movies... eventually it will be a basic norm as well.

Things change all around us, remaining statical believing that there exists a single system that can handle any change whatever it is I find kind of foolish.

 

[Phobius]

Oh and bringing up an "coherent" as an argument is stupid. No offense intended.

You can not argue what is coherent in a fighting system. Especially not one as abstract as LFJ's and guy's WSLVT system. Coherent is only in the eyes of the beholder, for me personally what I heard I find my own system way more coherent than whatever I have heard from LFJ and guy.

This will of course not be accepted as a coherent system in their point of view because until this point they have been unable to describe what they mean by coherent in any other way than what most of us probably considers it to mean; A logical flow of information teaching a logical outcome/result through practise with a good foundation that is in all logical sense matching our own perceived expectations on a fight. Including techniques, concepts, reaction, strength and skill.

 

[LFJ]

To be honest I think LFJ is just talking about the very foundation of WC, that the special punch that only exist in VT is the same punch as done by all lineages. Meaning control the centerline you prohibit the opponent from attacking you while you punch him. In some cases you control his elbow or his arm, in other cases you are simply keeping the area guarded that in case he tries to find an angle you can quickly deflect his attack.

What do you mean by control the center line or keep the area guarded?

Coherent is only in the eyes of the beholder, for me personally what I heard I find my own system way more coherent than whatever I have heard from LFJ and guy.

It's objective. Thousands have had the same realization which led to switching lineages.

What we talk about is incredibly simple. You can't imagine it because what you are taught is entirely different.

 

[KPM]

Asking how I'd use a certain tactic against a certain type of attack is a scenario, and your scenario makes no sense.

I asked how it was going to work against an opponent that is NOT using linear centerline punches. How does that not make sense???

 

[KPM]

It's objective. Thousands have had the same realization which led to switching lineages.

.

Really? I thought you objected to.....what did you call it?.....an "appeal to majority"?

 

[LFJ]

I asked how it was going to work against an opponent that is NOT using linear centerline punches. How does that not make sense???

You're asking me to misapply a principle.

I said VT has tactics to draw certain types of attacks, or force certain types of responses by closing options. It's a fighting strategy we impose on the opponent.

You can be their puppet and walk into round punches with taan-sau all you want.

Really? I thought you objected to.....what did you call it?.....an "appeal to majority"?

Not an appeal to majority. It's an objective truth anyone can go experience for themselves. The number of people who have doesn't make it so, but it's an intriguing number.

 

[LFJ]

---I learned from Joy Chaudhuri & Augustine Fong, who learned from Ho Kam Ming, who learned from Ip Man. Is that "VT"?

I'm not sure what Joy teaches. He has a very cryptic posting style. I see quite a few issues with things AF teaches, but no one is open to discussing it.

To give you an example...

Is this something you learned? This guy appears to be from the HKM-AF lineage and is currently doing a Mastering the Fundamentals series on Youtube, and below is one of the 4 basic attacks he teaches from laap-sau.

Skipping past the issues with the basic laap-sau cycles...

The first problem I see is that he's needlessly applying two arms to one (and downward!) by following the student's arm he's laap-ing down with a gam-sau. Then punching. It's overly complex, indirect, and inefficient. I would call this chasing the arm he's leading away himself, the dog chasing its own tail.

The second problem is with the student's response. His wu-sau is just hanging out, serving no purpose whatsoever while his other arm is following the teacher's actions and extending fully straight in an elbow-out, upward swing. That's something that should never be done outside of perhaps emergency situations. Why is it in a beginner drill like this?

But the student's biggest problem is that his wu-sau is unresponsive. As soon as his lead arm is laap-ed down his wu should instinctively punch (LSJC). This would nail the teacher before he got his punch off, or effectively intercept the punch if he did.

This drill is just teaching hand-chasing ideas and de-training LSJC instincts, if any were ever trained. To improve it, both sides of the whole first part should be scrapped. The teacher should drop the redundant gam-sau technique and just do his second idea of laap-da. This is simple and direct, and trains the student's wu-sau to be alive and responsive at the loss of his lead arm.

Counter hitting should always be the basic idea in VT. Drills should constantly check for LSJC.

 

[Vajramusti]

To give you an example...

Is this something you learned? This guy appears to be from the HKM-AF lineage and is currently doing a Mastering the Fundamentals series on Youtube, and below is one of the 4 basic attacks he teaches from laap-sau.

Skipping past the issues with the basic laap-sau cycles...

The first problem I see is that he's needlessly applying two arms to one (and downward!) by following the student's arm he's laap-ing down with a gam-sau. Then punching. It's overly complex, indirect, and inefficient. I would call this chasing the arm he's leading away himself, the dog chasing its own tail.

The second problem is with the student's response. His wu-sau is just hanging out, serving no purpose whatsoever while his other arm is following the teacher's actions and extending fully straight in an elbow-out, upward swing. That's something that should never be done outside of perhaps emergency situations. Why is it in a beginner drill like this?

But the student's biggest problem is that his wu-sau is unresponsive. As soon as his lead arm is laap-ed down his wu should instinctively punch (LSJC). This would nail the teacher before he got his punch off, or effectively intercept the punch if he did.

This drill is just teaching hand-chasing ideas and de-training LSJC instincts, if any were ever trained. To improve it, both sides of the whole first part should be scrapped. The teacher should drop the redundant gam-sau technique and just do his second idea of laap-da. This is simple and direct, and trains the student's wu-sau to be alive and responsive at the loss of his lead arm.

Counter hitting should always be the basic idea in VT. Drills should constantly check for LSJC.

-----------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Lop Sao is an important timing development tool.

It will take too long to explain all this to video watching anonymous posters..

Cheers and bye.

 

[LFJ]

Good Lop Sao is an important timing development tool.

Keyword "good". Ironically, his timing is off too, but I skipped that.

So, "is this VT"? Well, you know I wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but I would say it appears someone who doesn't understand VT has made a drill to teach redundant gam-sau and what this guy calls "faak-sau" techniques and violates multiple principles of VT in the process.

It will take too long to explain all this to video watching anonymous posters..

lol, Because my username slows your ability to explain things and ad hominems are always faster.

 

[SaulGoodman]

How can you expect Joy to want to discuss his method with you when you have already began criticizing it before the man has said a word? Let's see YOU performing "VT" as you preach it so we can be as generous with our criticisms as you and your sidekick are. Not clips of Sean (who is a good, open minded practitioner) or PB, where you then say "this is an example of what we do therefore I don't have to post any clips". Come on, educate us as to what we are all doing wrong. But we all know this will NEVER happen right? And you know why? Because youre just as afraid of criticism as everyone else. The big difference is, some people still have the guts to put clips out there for people like you to "discuss"...

 

[Phobius]

You're asking me to misapply a principle.

I said VT has tactics to draw certain types of attacks, or force certain types of responses by closing options. It's a fighting strategy we impose on the opponent.

You are saying you can prevent your opponent from doing round attack by closing that as an option?

I have to ask, do you ever spar anyone not training VT? Those options are never closed with any VT principles. They are opening and closing pending the footwork of your opponent and to believe you will always have the better footwork is just talk made by people who don't understand fighting.

 

[LFJ]

How can you expect Joy to want to discuss his method with you when you have already began criticizing it before the man has said a word?

He wasn't in the conversation. I was asked my opinion on the lineage, said I'm not sure. Was pressed again, so I pulled up an example to explain my view of what I saw. Can't help it if you don't like it.

 

[LFJ]

You are saying you can prevent your opponent from doing round attack by closing that as an option?

I have to ask, do you ever spar anyone not training VT? Those options are never closed with any VT principles. They are opening and closing pending the footwork of your opponent and to believe you will always have the better footwork is just talk made by people who don't understand fighting.

Never said anything about always, but if you don't know how to close options or draw responses, that's your problem.

 

[Phobius]

Never said anything about always, but if you don't know how to close options or draw responses, that's your problem.

Draw responses has nothing to do with the subject, you cant expect to draw responses in such a way that opponent will not do round attacks.

Closing options is interesting, you honestly think you can close down the options of doing round attacks on you? Truly? And this without using footwork as a solution?

Well I do not believe in fairy tales and to be honest it does sound like it. If you keep your guard close as a boxer you might block the possibility of starting with a round attack but that is why most combos start with a jab anyways. Keep in mind that KPM just asked how you deal with round attacks and it seems you are claiming you dont worry about those because more often than not you have that option closed down.

It is not a matter of me wanting to know some secret information you might have, it is more of me having figured out and found out that I do not need such a koolaid.

 

[Vajramusti]

How can you expect Joy to want to discuss his method with you when you have already began criticizing it before the man has said a word?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't may much attention to LFJ or Guy b.

 

[KPM]

You're asking me to misapply a principle.

---Baloney. I'm asking you to explain how you are using your LSDD with one arm only against non-linear, non-centerline punches. After all, it is you who said this is what your version of Wing Chun emphasizes, your specialty. You have said you don't use a Tan Da. You certainly make it sound like you use your punching response for everything unless it needs a "helper" hand.


I said VT has tactics to draw certain types of attacks, or force certain types of responses by closing options. It's a fighting strategy we impose on the opponent. You can be their puppet and walk into round punches with taan-sau all you want.

---Really? So you actually believe you can dictate to an opponent that they can't throw non-linear, non-centerline punches? You can force them to throw only nice straight center-line punches? Now THAT, I would like to see!


Not an appeal to majority. It's an objective truth anyone can go experience for themselves. The number of people who have doesn't make it so, but it's an intriguing number.

---I'm sure John could track down his three friends that were noted if he had to and get them to state what they said for the record. How is that any less "objective" than your "thousands". Do you have a record of each and every one of these "thousands"?

 

[KPM]

---I remember Brian Tufts! But he looks very different today!

Is this something you learned?

---Way back when, yes. I haven't practiced that in many years.


The first problem I see is that he's needlessly applying two arms to one (and downward!) by following the student's arm he's laap-ing down with a gam-sau. Then punching. It's overly complex, indirect, and inefficient. I would call this chasing the arm he's leading away himself, the dog chasing its own tail.

---Weren't you the one that was very big on things being all "abstract" in your "VT"? And now you are essentially assuming everything done in this drill would be done this way in a fighting situation? You can't look past the direct "application" of what they are doing? The Gan Sau and punch can easily be seen as uses any time you are able to pin the opponent's arm momentarily in a low position and punch through. The opponent then learns to counter this trap by using the Biu Sau or Fak Sau. The Lop Da drill is just a training "platform" into which this is inserted for drilling purposes.


The second problem is with the student's response. His wu-sau is just hanging out, serving no purpose whatsoever while his other arm is following the teacher's actions and extending fully straight in an elbow-out, upward swing.

---Its a drill!


That's something that should never be done outside of perhaps emergency situations. Why is it in a beginner drill like this?

---Says who? Why should using a Fak Sau when your arms are trapped low be limited to Biu Gee level teaching. Is that an Ip Man rule we don't know about? Fak Sau is found in the Siu Nim Tau form!

 

[guy b.]

It will take too long to explain all this to video watching anonymous posters..

It shouldn't take long. This is a good opportunity to explain the purpose of the drill. You can do it in general terms without giving away specifics if you like.

 

[guy b.]

I'm asking you to explain how you are using your LSDD with one arm only against non-linear, non-centerline punches..

Strategy, positioning, imposition of game plan, closing options, forcing reaction