What does Efficiency mean to you?

[Danny T]

Lol, where are you trying to get with this? He's already said that silly drunk old uncle Ed would get pushed back down on the couch, no VT required, while nasty dangerous drunk uncle Ed would get treated just the same as any other violent attacker. I'm guessing in the second case that they wouldn't be invited back for Christmas next year.

It is literally insane to try and split hairs and identify reasonably dangerous drunk uncle Ed that I still want to keep in touch with as the ideal victim for this kind of crazy wing chun as grappling/restraint thing the forum seems to want to give birth to.

No what he said was: "I would not use VT on Uncle Ed."
He didn't say anything about him being drunk. I say I just push him down 'if he was stumbling drunk'.
So he nor you would use any of your wc training to prevent an angry attack by a relative. In your wc it is either take the guy out or it is do nothing other than leave or get beat up nothing in between. I find that a bit hard to believe but that is what my take away is with this.

As any other surprised potential murder victim you attempt to fight or plead for your life against massive odds, and 99 times out of 100 you lose and die. Not many people come off best against weapons without weapons. Just doesn't happen. Again not really a big gap into which wing chun can be inserted as the answer.



I think he's just being realistic. Why torture reality in these scenarios and assume you are going to get point by point replies?

So you just die. Ok.
Actually far more people survive than die in bladed weapon attacks.
I'm not looking for a specific action one would do. But if in a situation where you were attacked with a weapon and you have nothing within your wc to fight back with then I can only assume you will die. I didn't say one would be unscathed. So you also would simply die or take the attack until the assailant broke it off and not even attempt to defend yourself.

 

[guy b.]

So he nor you would use any of your wc training to prevent an angry attack by a relative. In your wc it is either take the guy out or it is do nothing other than leave or get beat up nothing in between. I find that a bit hard to believe but that is what my take away is with this.

I personally cannot imagine any scenario where I am attacked so violently by a relative that I need to use VT. Probably in any confrontation with a relative I would wrestle or judo them. If it escalated to the point where punching them was required then yes I would leave assuming I wanted to maintain any kind of relationship with them.

Actually far more people survive than die in bladed weapon attacks.
I'm not looking for a specific action one would do. But if in a situation where you were attacked with a weapon and you have nothing within your wc to fight back with then I can only assume you will die. I didn't say one would be unscathed. So you also would simply die or take the attack until the assailant broke it off and not even attempt to defend yourself.

In a weapon attack assuming I am unarmed and surprised and cannot run away, yet see the blade and have time to do something about it, then I would probably attempt to grab or smother the knife hand and take the fight to the floor where I would hope that I would be able to use top position leverage to secure the blade or turn it upon the attacker. But this is silly conversation. Any knife wielding attacker that wanted me to die would in fact have killed me already. The majority of people that survive bladed weapon attacks are people that were not intended murder victims.

 

[mograph]

WC/VT is in this latter group, and IMO good WC/VT is one of the most tightly integrated martial systems out there. And, properly done it demonstrates a high level of systemic efficiency.

Okay, now that's interesting: evaluating systemic efficiency. Get well soon, so we can dig into this!

Edit: off the top of my head, we could extrapolate the signal-to-noise model (feel free to suggest a better one) where, within a system, good (efficient and effective) techniques are "signal" and bad techniques are "noise." Improving the bad techniques or removing them from the system could serve to improve the efficiency of the system as a whole.

 

[mograph]

Isn't aikido a system best-equipped to deal with attacks from Uncle Ed ... or an angry teenaged nephew at Thanksgiving?

 

[geezer]

Okay, now that's interesting: evaluating systemic efficiency. Get well soon, so we can dig into this!

Edit: off the top of my head, we could extrapolate the signal-to-noise model (feel free to suggest a better one) where, within a system, good (efficient and effective) techniques are "signal" and bad techniques are "noise." Improving the bad techniques or removing them from the system could serve to improve the efficiency of the system as a whole.

I'm back for the moment. Yeah, I like your model. I think that's basically what GM Yip Man tried to do, and I'll wager it's what WSL tried to do, due to his interest in actually fighting. I'll bet this explains more about why his VT is different from other Yip Man Students' than whether he was a particularly favored student.

 

[Danny T]

I'm back for the moment. Yeah, I like your model. I think that's basically what GM Yip Man tried to do, and I'll wager it's what WSL tried to do, due to his interest in actually fighting. I'll bet this explains more about why his VT is different from other Yip Man Students' than whether he was a particularly favored student.

And the outcome is something that was what worked best for them at that particular time. Doesn't mean it is what is best for all others. I'm also willing to bet if one were to be able to piece together all that was gleaned over the course of their advanced level of learning as well as what they instructed and how we would see several 'changes' along the way.

 

[KPM]

^^^^ I agree with Steve and Danny both. I've made that same point several times in other threads in regards to why WSL's Wing Chun is different from everyone else's. That just lead to more denial and arguments from the dynamic duo!

 

[guy b.]

Edit: off the top of my head, we could extrapolate the signal-to-noise model (feel free to suggest a better one) where, within a system, good (efficient and effective) techniques are "signal" and bad techniques are "noise." Improving the bad techniques or removing them from the system could serve to improve the efficiency of the system as a whole.

Wing chun is not a technique based system.

I am not aware of the ideas of wing chun having changed recently. Noise reduction amounts only to removing contradiction and confusion in wing chun.

 

[wckf92]

Wing chun is not a technique based system.

I am not aware of the ideas of wing chun having changed recently. Noise reduction amounts only to removing contradiction and confusion in wing chun.

maybe 'techniques' could be replaced with 'drills', 'methods', concepts/principles, training goals etc?

 

[guy b.]

maybe 'techniques' could be replaced with 'drills', 'methods', concepts/principles, training goals etc?

Do you think any of these have been changed recently?

 

[wckf92]

Do you think any of these have been changed recently?

Don't know. Who can say?
On another forum, I saw a Moy Yat drill that, to me, looked very much like "noise". With a few tweaks, it could be so much more. But, I suspect that this is the case between wing chun families as a whole.

 

[guy b.]

On another forum, I saw a Moy Yat drill that, to me, looked very much like "noise". With a few tweaks, it could be so much more

Noise in a concept/principle based system is a matter of removing extraneous info, contradiction, and lack of clarity

 

[mograph]

maybe 'techniques' could be replaced with 'drills', 'methods', concepts/principles, training goals etc?

I think so. I was using the term in a general sense, that is, "thing done."
Element or component, maybe.

 

[geezer]

Guy reiterated his position that, "Wing chun is not a technique based system". So we could discuss "efficiency of concept" which could get very vague and confusing, or analyze efficiency as expressed through technique. The concept should be evident in any application.

For example, when you use a punch both to deflect an oncoming punch and to strike to center from the outside gate (da sau jik si siu sau or "attacking hand' is defending hand) the specific application is expressing several concepts relating to efficiency: straight-line attack=shortest distance, no-blocking, chasing center not hands, one hand controlling two (yat fook yee), "collision principle" (your opponents forward energy is added to yours, increasing the force of your punch), and so forth.

So although the art should not be technique based, good technique should reflect the conceptual base.

 

[guy b.]

Guy reiterated his position that, "Wing chun is not a technique based system". So we could discuss "efficiency of concept" which could get very vague and confusing, or analyze efficiency as expressed through technique. The concept should be evident in any application.

For example, when you use a punch both to deflect an oncoming punch and to strike to center from the outside gate (da sau jik si siu sau or "attacking hand' is defending hand) the specific application is expressing several concepts relating to efficiency: straight-line attack=shortest distance, no-blocking, chasing center not hands, one hand controlling two (yat fook yee), "collision principle" (your opponents forward energy is added to yours, increasing the force of your punch), and so forth.

So although the art should not be technique based, good technique should reflect the conceptual base.

It is fine to look at movement in terms of underlying concept, as long as you are clear in your minds what that is. There are infinite movements, few ideas. Easier to focus on the underlying ideas, IMO

 

[Touch Of Death]

Guy reiterated his position that, "Wing chun is not a technique based system". So we could discuss "efficiency of concept" which could get very vague and confusing, or analyze efficiency as expressed through technique. The concept should be evident in any application.

For example, when you use a punch both to deflect an oncoming punch and to strike to center from the outside gate (da sau jik si siu sau or "attacking hand' is defending hand) the specific application is expressing several concepts relating to efficiency: straight-line attack=shortest distance, no-blocking, chasing center not hands, one hand controlling two (yat fook yee), "collision principle" (your opponents forward energy is added to yours, increasing the force of your punch), and so forth.

So although the art should not be technique based, good technique should reflect the conceptual base.

So, efficiency is like "Chaining: well? And, yeah, techniques should reflect your base, not the other way around.

 

[geezer]

It is fine to look at movement in terms of underlying concept, as long as you are clear in your minds what that is. There are infinite movements, few ideas. Easier to focus on the underlying ideas, IMO

I agree. But as you and LFJ like to point out, concepts are abstract. Techniques are not. So, IMO it's often easier to explain concepts as they are applied through a tangible technique.

To avoid needless argument, let me illustrate this using another concept-based art that is not WC. I also teach Eskrima. My main influences were Latosa Escrima Concepts and Torres DTE.
Three core concepts expressed in Torres DTE are: Forward Intent, Getting an Angle (superior relative position), and "Diamondpoint" (pinpoint redirection with no wasted motion).

When we practice, I'll frequently have students analyze a failed technique in terms of which of these three is lacking. Then I have them adjust what they do to conform to the concept, and voila! the technique becomes effective. As you said, few concepts, infinite techniques.

 

[LFJ]

But you already stated you wouldn't use wc chun so again what would you use? (that you are fine with ending his night early with)

Obviously a solid VT punch if he were seriously attacking me and sober enough not to just be dropped on the couch so I can leave the room.

Luckily I don't have any violent relatives, but I wouldn't mind cutting ties with an idiot like that.

If it's just drunk Uncle Ed being stupid I wouldn't use VT.

Provided you had an equalizer and even more importantly could access it. What happens in the mean time?

In a situation where I'm forced to go barehanded against a knife attack, I'd likely use things from different MAs and tactics designed specifically for that situation by people with experience.

What I wouldn't do is use VT or try to invent some modified VT on the spot. For what? To be able to claim VT has answers for everything and works unarmed against knife attacks?

That's not being realistic. That's being a True Believer, and more than likely a Dead Idiot for thinking you can "kung fu" a knife attacker.

You are playing same aloof game in your answers as your complaints of others now.

You are playing the same scenario game as KPM. You want me to give you a play by play of how a fight is gonna go? VT doesn't work like that.

 

[Phobius]

In a situation where I'm forced to go barehanded against a knife attack, I'd likely use things from different MAs and tactics designed specifically for that situation by people with experience.

What I wouldn't do is use VT or try to invent some modified VT on the spot. For what? To be able to claim VT has answers for everything and works unarmed against knife attacks?

That's not being realistic. That's being a True Believer, and more than likely a Dead Idiot for thinking you can "kung fu" a knife attacker.

No, if you train enough WC/VT it will be a natural instinct when pushed up against a wall to use it. If that is not the case it says nothing about your art but about how you drilled it. Adding a knife to a fight just means both will get hurt badly. Some things in WC/VT will perhaps make things a bit worse than other more knife defense art related stuff would. But it is body structure, punching, movement and everything else all the same.

A knife fight is not the time to mix other martial arts to a big pile. And in some cases it is just better to suprise your attacker. Anyone ever thought how he would react if you curled up like a ball and just started crying intensely with tears and everything. Who besides from 1-2 psychopaths could maintain balance enough to stab that guy?

 

[LFJ]

You do whatever it takes. But don't be stupid. Good luck!