What if Wing Chun remained a concept...

[LFJ]

You expect that a scenario must be exactly this way because he did so. For someone dealing with everything being abstract you have a very one way street in terms of applications.

What he described is not abstract and not my application...

I'm just going by what he said. He gave details on how this and that is going to happen, then said now watch it at full speed... and none of it happened.

Besides you would never accept anything in demo as proof. Even if he did it as you expected it could have been after retakes and timing. Nothing can be proven unless you can do it yourself.

Not true. I don't care if it's after retakes and whatever. If he could do it at full speed that would convince me that it can be done at full speed, at least against a single, known punch.

As it stands, after 3 tries he still couldn't do it even in a demo. So, we shouldn't even be dreaming about it working in a fight. It hasn't passed the first test outside of chi-sau.

 

[Phobius]

What he described is not abstract and not my application...

I'm just going by what he said. He gave details on how this and that is going to happen, then said now watch it at full speed... and none of it happened.

First of all he was not talking about only unconscious bong sau, he also said there is active. Both are valid bong sau. I am not really clear on if he is demonstrating bong sau or only intending to demonstrate unconscious bong sau as he calls it. In addition he seems to jump to discussing punching as follow up to bong sau as well.

Second of all this is a demo. I did not say it was abstract demo, I was saying that one dealing with abstracts should understand more why a demo is not a reliable source. The demo is made to be instructional to students. As such it can be that he willingly prevented the risk that he would not react with a bong sau because his opponent would not apply enough force.

This can happen quite often when training as well with your sifu, he wants to demonstrate something related to a specific move but the move was not natural instead he forces it just to make sure his point can be demonstrated. Reason? He has nothing to prove, just something to teach.

Not true. I don't care if it's after retakes and whatever. If he could do it at full speed that would convince me that it can be done at full speed, at least against a single, known punch.

As it stands, after 3 tries he still couldn't do it even in a demo. So, we shouldn't even be dreaming about it working in a fight. It hasn't passed the first test outside of chi-sau.

Once more saying this was not a video intended to prove it works, it was a demonstrational and instructional video to teach students some details about bong sau. You want to apply this as proof but in fact it can simply be that he took no risk of opponent not punching with enough force to trigger a bong sau or because his mind is not clear but instead fully focused on what he is talking about to the camera.

One is clear in mind when fighting, not when doing an instructional video and need to follow a script, at least mental one, on what to say in order to not repeat yourself.

At the same time bong sau is not proven on video to be working, and quite frankly it matters not to me. I do not believe in any videos as proof. Instead I would advice you to ask yourself first "do you want it proven?" If yes, then train hard and then test to see if it works. If it does not, you either A) Trained badly, or B) it might not work for you.

EDIT: I am not trying to say you are wrong, I am trying to make you understand that the world is not black and white, it is a grey place. There are more truths than a single one. We should not trust YouTube blindly.

As for logics we should at least consider the fact that a very experienced and well versed fighter with his own schools might actually have felt something working has he describes it, if he says it works. Not because he could not have lied, but because people might laugh at him if he said stuff that was so easily proven false.

 

[SaulGoodman]

This is a bit of an idiot response and does nothing to tackle the excellent and detailed criticism of his movements made by LFJ.

You do like a bit of "excellent criticism" . Except when it's aimed at you...

 

[yak sao]

Having trained with Emin, I saw him demonstrate things like this countless times and had him demo on me countless times.
One thing he would do to demonstrate structure was to take the largest most muscular guy in class and have the guy try to break through his structure. Emin always held his structure. I never saw anyone break his structure, whether he was demonstrating tan, bong, wu or whatever.
So I would imagine Emin was quite accommodating in this video for sake of demonstration , as it was demonstrating bong sau and not structure.

 

[geezer]

An observation about the "jolting" bong in WSL-VT as described by LFJ is that it is directed at the incoming punch, not forward at the opponent and then rolled into a deflecting bong when contacting an incoming punch as in the WT/Ebmas version.

Think about that a moment. LFJ's bong is It's formed of his own volition and then is directed at jolting the incoming arm aside. No problem, I can see how that works, yet compared with the bong as used in WT/EBMAS et al., what LFJ describes sounds like chasing hands. ...something he makes a big deal out of in other lineages. Just a thought.

 

[guy b.]

You do like a bit of "excellent criticism" . Except when it's aimed at you...

I relish the opportunity to talk about VT if you have anything to contribute

 

[guy b.]

what LFJ describes sounds like chasing hands. ...something he makes a big deal out of in other lineages. Just a thought.

Bong is a clearing/corrective action, used only when the attacking line is not free and/or position is compromised. It is not a primary action and so is not chasing hands. When the way is free to hit, you hit.

 

[geezer]

Bong is a clearing/corrective action, used only when the attacking line is not free and/or position is compromised. It is not a primary action and so is not chasing hands. When the way is free to hit, you hit.

So when you visually perceive that "the way" is or will be blocked by an incoming punch, you throw a jolting bong at his punching arm to free the way and compromise his structure. ....A corrective action that attacks his arm on the basis of it appearing to be in your way.

Sorry, my eyes aren't that good. I like to back them up with what I feel with my bridges. Yeah, I know, this is a type of thinking that comes from messing around too much in chi-sau. My bad.

 

[guy b.]

So when you visually perceive that "the way" is or will be blocked by an incoming punch, you throw a jolting bong at his punching arm to free the way and compromise his structure. ....A corrective action that attacks his arm on the basis of it appearing to be in your way.

Sorry, my eyes aren't that good. I like to back them up with what I feel with my bridges. Yeah, I know, this is a type of thinking that comes from messing around too much in chi-sau. My bad.

Why the obsession with throwing a bong at a punch?

 

[geezer]

Why the obsession with throwing a bong at a punch?

Why indeed? Not something we normally do in our VT. Just something LFJ was rather keen on judging from his posts. From our perspective, that would be a "subjective response". Our preferred mode is developing "objective responses", i.e. based on actual force received over visual cues.

However in my experience all exchanges actually contain a mix of objective and subjective response ...so no biggie. I can respect what you do. Carry on.

 

[SaulGoodman]

An observation about the "jolting" bong in WSL-VT as described by LFJ is that it is directed at the incoming punch, not forward at the opponent and then rolled into a deflecting bong when contacting an incoming punch as in the WT/Ebmas version.

Think about that a moment. LFJ's bong is It's formed of his own volition and then is directed at jolting the incoming arm aside. No problem, I can see how that works, yet compared with the bong as used in WT/EBMAS et al., what LFJ describes sounds like chasing hands. ...something he makes a big deal out of in other lineages. Just a thought.

But Geezer, it's a "remedial" thing

 

[SaulGoodman]

I relish the opportunity to talk about VT if you have anything to contribute

I will just modify the above statement to reflect what you actually mean :

"I relish the opportunity to shoot down /conflict/berate/ gain one upmanship on ANY of your views which I perceive to be contrary to my prejudiced and narrow minded view of what real "VEETEEE" is".

I would rather go have root canal treatment, there is pain involved but at least I get something productive out of it..,.

 

[guy b.]

I would rather go have root canal treatment

If it is so painful for you to interact, then why do so? Seems like a strange choice.

 

[KPM]

If it is so painful for you to interact, then why do so? Seems like a strange choice.

I could be wrong. But it seems to me that Saul is saying it is painful to interact with YOU, not interact in general.

 

[guy b.]

I could be wrong. But it seems to me that Saul is saying it is painful to interact with YOU, not interact in general.

But I am about the only person he interacts with, and his entire repertoire of conversation is me and LFJ. Seems an odd choice for someone who finds it so difficult.

 

[Phobius]

Why do I get a feeling the discussion on this topic has come to an end?

 

[SaulGoodman]

I could be wrong. But it seems to me that Saul is saying it is painful to interact with YOU, not interact in general.

Got it in one brother

 

[Dirty Dog]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please return to the original topic and keep the conversation polite and professional.

 

[Juany118]

Something just dawned on me regarding the OP. When did Wing Chun stop being a "conceptual art"? Does not the very fact that we are discussing the different methods of various Wing Chun styles, all of which (if I am not mistaken) lay claim to the Yip Man Lineage, indicate that WC is still a conceptual MA?

 

[yak sao]

Something just dawned on me regarding the OP. When did Wing Chun stop being a "conceptual art"? Does not the very fact that we are discussing the different methods of various Wing Chun styles, all of which (if I am not mistaken) lay claim to the Yip Man Lineage, indicate that WC is still a conceptual MA?

Oh sure, 12 pages later and after we get fussed at by one of the mods and now you think of it.