What if Wing Chun remained a concept...

[LFJ]

Nah, it doesn't have to be viewed as a flaw. Different lineages have different ways of looking at the system. It's just a fact.

It's a flaw when it's not functional for lack of strategy.

 

[Nobody Important]

I find it very humbling to be in the presence of individuals who possess a devine branch of VT that contains absolutely no deficiencies or flaws of any sort. An unmatched method of perfect absolution that was invented by the gods and bestowed upon mortal man. A method that was passed on to only one man who has disseminated to a chosen few. A few who have decided to benefit us all with the great wisdom they possess and correct our erroneous beliefs. Thank you pure ones for shining a light on our ignorance. How can we ever repay you.

 

[Phobius]

Not true at all.

I repeatedly told Phobius it's not a primary action applied against a punch, and that it is indeed a forward action. It's the rotation of the elbow that laterally displaces the obstruction, not a sideways attack at an arm.

As Guy said, you guys do seem obsessed with throwing a bong at a punch, like you can't let go of the idea.

I think because your heads are so filled with application ideas. You need it to be this against that to make sense of it.

Arrogant and yet I feel the need to explain. Since we can not talk about concepts or principles without getting into a discussion of interpretation, we need to find a scenario or as you call it 'application' in order to discuss and understand how you interpretate concepts and principles.

Application and scenario are different things however. Application means that you learn this technique to deal with this kind of technique. Scenario is more of "If there is a punch and you deal with it by doing this movement/technique/whatever you want to call it, what would you do?"

Now you say you do not think in application, well we dont either. We were talking about examples, which I assume you forgot. After all it was quite a lot of pages back since we started talking about this and it is easily forgotten.

Heck you think Emin was showing application? He was doing a demo to explain important things to consider. He did not mean for people to consider his points only in a specific application that he was demoing.

Judging from what posts?!

The multiple posts I had to make telling Phobius that bong-sau is not a primary action thrown at an incoming punch?? And you and he still don't get it...

Well this I take on me, I was thinking you were talking about doing a bong sau towards a punch. It got me cringing when thinking about frontal collision so I had to discuss this with you to understand how you do that. I guess you were either not clear as you were in the quote, or I misunderstood you.

If there's an incoming punch, my response should generally be to counter punch. Never bong-sau! If at range and in position to use my arms without raising my elbow, I would not bong. Bong-sau is only remedial, so it's not used very often in fighting. There is absolutely no necessity to use bong-sau in the scenario discussed and demoed by Emin and I would not.

My bong-sau is a remedial action to retake space. Everything is about taking space and attacking forward. I don't care what an opponent's arm is doing. The arm is not a target. Bong is just opening space for the punch it is coupled with. Two arms work as a unit. Both are directed forward and both help capture an attack line while hitting. That's it.

What space is there to retake if opponent is guarding himself? Or is this only for situations then when opponent is stretching out his arms? I mean since you say you do not use a bong sau on punches. Not often I see people stretching out their hands during a fight unless when punching or trying to grab.

Look, this probably doesn't make sense to you, but everything is about controlling my own position and structures in a fight.

I'm not concerned with blocking, feeling, and controlling arms, or applying this move vs that move. My only concern is capturing space and attacking. It's a behavior reflex. The stimulus is my own bodily and spatial awareness. I'm not throwing a reactive bong-sau at a punch I see.

If you must think in terms of 1:1 application ideas, you won't understand it. I don't know what else to tell you.

So to clarify, bong sau is against static arm? Meaning since if there is no arm you cannot do a bong sau given that such a move is like sacrificing your own arm for nothing. Or once more misstaken? I mean you want to retake space but bong sau actually does require something to do it against.

 

[guy b.]

Nah, it doesn't have to be viewed as a flaw. Different lineages have different ways of looking at the system. It's just a fact.

It can be viewed as a flaw if it introduces contradictory understanding or otherwise breaks the system

 

[guy b.]

So to clarify, bong sau is against static arm? Meaning since if there is no arm you cannot do a bong sau given that such a move is like sacrificing your own arm for nothing. Or once more misstaken? I mean you want to retake space but bong sau actually does require something to do it against

Bong clears the way for the punch. If the way is clear then just punch

 

[guy b.]

VT is conceptually unique, was created in a vacuum and theoretically different from all other martial arts

VT is quite different from many other Southern Chinese systems. It bears little or no relation in terms of its approach to the fight to many of the systems it is often compared to. Obviously it wasn't created in a vacuum and we can speculate about where it came from, but can't know for sure. If it evolved from these others then a fundamental strategic change was made at some point for some reason. More likely it came from elsewhere.

 

[LFJ]

What space is there to retake if opponent is guarding himself? Or is this only for situations then when opponent is stretching out his arms? I mean since you say you do not use a bong sau on punches. Not often I see people stretching out their hands during a fight unless when punching or trying to grab.

You're still focusing on the opponent's position and not on your own.

I never said I don't use a bong-sau "on punches". I said I don't use it as a primary action against an incoming punch.

So to clarify, bong sau is against static arm? Meaning since if there is no arm you cannot do a bong sau given that such a move is like sacrificing your own arm for nothing. Or once more misstaken? I mean you want to retake space but bong sau actually does require something to do it against.

I don't care what it's "against". It's just clearing the way for the punch it's coupled with. It's not dependent upon what exactly the opponent is doing, but on our own position and need for a remedial action to regain an attack line.

If you don't understand, just never mind.

 

[Juany118]

I don't care what it's "against". It's just clearing the way for the punch it's coupled with. It's not dependent upon what exactly the opponent is doing, but on our own position and need for a remedial action to regain an attack line.

I have to disagree with this last bit, if I did not misunderstand you.

Nothing any fighter does, once a fight has started, is concerned with only our position and the need for remedial action, because a bong can be used for far more than just clearing the way for a punch. As a matter of fact the chances are it will clear the way for a punch is quite slim because in all the real fights I have been in I have yet to run into a skilled fighter who basically keeps their arm out there so the bong or tan accomplishes this. A skilled fighter says "strike did not connect. Bring it back!!!"


That said a fight is about...

First: a synergy of both participants. What position we are in in direct relation to what the opponent is doing. Using your own position alone is either fighting an opponent that is fighting in the exact same manner you have (such as training in class) or Shadow boxing. Unless of course you are fighting an opponent that is so lacking in skill that you can in essence control what they do. I train to fight in the real world and so these three dynamics are cast from my mind.

Second: having a goal?
-To keep taking the fight to the opponent in order to, for lack of a better term, beat them into submission?
-Take them down to the ground in order to control them?
-Gain distance so you can get to a tool, or if necessary even flee because the opponents "friends" have shown up?

To be overly concerned about your current position is to miss half of the fight and to have no plan. Lacking these two things usually ends in defeat.

Like I said I may have misunderstood the point you were trying to make, if I did could you elaborate? If I didn't the above stands.

 

[LFJ]

Nothing any fighter does, once a fight has started, is concerned with only our position and the need for remedial action, because a bong can be used for far more than just clearing the way for a punch. As a matter of fact the chances are it will clear the way for a punch is quite slim because in all the real fights I have been in I have yet to run into a skilled fighter who basically keeps their arm out there so the bong or tan accomplishes this. A skilled fighter says "strike did not connect. Bring it back!!!"

Bong-sau as I do it is a very sudden "paak" action from the elbow. Doesn't require prolonged contact. I don't do the stick and rotate thing.

What position we are in in direct relation to what the opponent is doing.

Of course. Having an attack line obstructed is just that. Spatial awareness allows us to react to changes in position. It is not choosing this technique to deal with that technique. It's all about managing position.

To be overly concerned about your current position is to miss half of the fight and to have no plan.

I don't know what you're calling "overly concerned". Having spatial awareness and acting to sustain attack by spatial domination or to regain advantageous position to do so is how fights are won with VT.

It's part of an overall strategy that uses behavior reflexes, as opposed to 1:1 applications or unrealistically trying to interpret the opponent's energy through prolonged arm contact that doesn't occur.

 

[Juany118]

Bong-sau as I do it is a very sudden "paak" action from the elbow. Doesn't require prolonged contact. I don't do the stick and rotate thing.



Of course. Having an attack line obstructed is just that. Spatial awareness allows us to react to changes in position. It is not choosing this technique to deal with that technique. It's all about managing position.



I don't know what you're calling "overly concerned". Having spatial awareness and acting to sustain attack by spatial domination or to regain advantageous position to do so is how fights are won with VT.

It's part of an overall strategy that uses behavior reflexes, as opposed to 1:1 applications or unrealistically trying to interpret the opponent's energy through prolonged arm contact that doesn't occur.

You said "It's not dependent upon what exactly the opponent is doing, but on our own position and need." That is what led me where I went with my First point. This statement and then you response above, seem to be exclusive of one another.

Additionally I am confused then. In response to a request for clarification of "so bong is against a static punch" you simply said "bong is to open the path for a punch". As you did not actually answer the question asked directly, that is also why I said "if I understand correctly." Now some schools of thought believe a bong should only roll out of a Tan as energy is still incoming. So the answer to this question seemed especially relevant.

As for you last bit I see it as only being half right. Is it useless to tell your opponent's exact strike (unless they are doing wide strikes like hooks and "round" attacks which kinda feed right into our more centric style)? Yes. But you should be able to tell if the next attack is coming from the right, left, high or low.

This is where I, at times, find a Bong a damn good in general defense. Now my though it that the only important bit of the Bong that is vital is the angle of the elbow to provide it the structural strength. When you use it you can easily keep it on the center line, vs say a Tan. This means that the limb itself is more readily available for transitioning into other techniques. I really think the Bong is underestimated by some.

 

[LFJ]

You said "It's not dependent upon what exactly the opponent is doing, but on our own position and need." That is what led me where I went with my First point. This statement and then you response above, seem to be exclusive of one another.

Additionally I am confused then. In response to a request for clarification of "so bong is against a static punch" you simply said "bong is to open the path for a punch". As you did not actually answer the question asked directly, that is also why I said "if I understand correctly."

?

I've only repeated the exact same thing!

Doesn't matter what it is. The path is obstructed from above. Bong-sau clears the way for the punch it's coupled with. Simple as that.

I don't know why people are unable to wrap their heads around spatial awareness and acting to rectify position, or why they are so obsessed with defining a specific technique for it to be "applied against".

Too much 1:1 application thinking...

 

[Callen]

It's a flaw when it's not functional for lack of strategy.

I can see a lack of strategy being the flaw of a practitioner, but not so much the fault of lineage. I doubt any style or lineage really started out with poor fighting strategies. Many practitioners misunderstand the system, that's the rub.

It can be viewed as a flaw if it introduces contradictory understanding or otherwise breaks the system

Again not the flaw of any lineage, but a flaw of the practitioner's understanding of the system.

 

[LFJ]

What if the practitioner who has a flawed understanding of the system is the head of a lineage and teaches their flawed understanding...?

That's a very real problem, but we can't point it out here or people start to get butthurt because they might be following such a lineage.

 

[Callen]

What if the practitioner who has a flawed understanding of the system is the head of a lineage and teaches their flawed understanding...?

That's a very real problem, but we can't point it out here or people start to get butthurt because they might be following such a lineage.

I understand your points very clearly. I would say, go by the way of Wu De. We can be tactful and position ourselves with others in a positive way, in-turn making a point much more readily heard and accepted. Go the respectful route always. How would your Sifu like you to respond to pointing out the flaws of others? I know that Wong Shun Leung would have wanted me to respond with respect and represent our lineage with the utmost pride. He would see no purpose in finding issues with other peoples' Wing Chun. In fact, he frowned upon it.

The practitioner with flawed understanding that teaches others is indeed an issue in our community. A never ending, debatable topic... But they're still just practitioners, regardless of their title or position. No lineage is responsible, some people get it and some don't. There's no way everyone is going to understand, and it's really not a big deal. Keep doing what you're doing and focus on your own Wing Chun. When you have the opportunity to share ideas with a student from another lineage, do so. At the end of the day, it's all about action anyway.

 

[guy b.]

I understand your points very clearly. I would say, go by the way of Wu De. We can be tactful and position ourselves with others in a positive way, in-turn making a point much more readily heard and accepted. Go the respectful route always. How would your Sifu like you to respond to pointing out the flaws of others? I know that Wong Shun Leung would have wanted me to respond with respect and represent our lineage with the utmost pride. He would see no purpose in finding issues with other peoples' Wing Chun. In fact, he frowned upon it.

The practitioner with flawed understanding that teaches others is indeed an issue in our community. A never ending, debatable topic... But they're still just practitioners, regardless of their title or position. No lineage is responsible, some people get it and some don't. There's no way everyone is going to understand, and it's really not a big deal. Keep doing what you're doing and focus on your own Wing Chun. When you have the opportunity to share ideas with a student from another lineage, do so. At the end of the day, it's all about action anyway.

I think hard to share ideas on a forum without people getting angry. My experience of it at least

 

[Juany118]

?

I've only repeated the exact same thing!

Doesn't matter what it is. The path is obstructed from above. Bong-sau clears the way for the punch it's coupled with. Simple as that.

I don't know why people are unable to wrap their heads around spatial awareness and acting to rectify position, or why they are so obsessed with defining a specific technique for it to be "applied against".

Too much 1:1 application thinking...

The below is simply based on general fighting experience, no particular art.

Spatial awareness is about being aware not only of how you are positioned in 3 dimensional space but how your opponent is positioned in same said space. Have you compromised their balance/center? Are (again not strictly 1:1) you and your opponent positioned in such a way that he is most likely to go low, high, come from the left of the right or even just try a straight up "bum rush?" These are all things a person who has practice in real fighting can determine. If you have repeated the exact same thing...that what your enemy is doing is unimportant, that your positioning is all that is important and yet spatial awareness of your opponent is important, then you have consistently contradicted yourself.

You seem to see fighting in real life as it is taught in theory in class. There is theory, then training, then practical application. Sparring = training btw because usually you are sparring in training against people following the same theory as yourself.

"Open up the center so you can strike until the enemy is down." Irl fighting this does NOT happen against fighters that are even just experienced in "street fighting" and not formally trained. They understand instinctively when their center is open. You may get a couple attacks in but then they cover, clinch, get distance whatever and then the fight is one again. What you describe is only truly effective against someone who is engaging in feral attacks with no thought or if your skill/technique and "killer instinct" are simply overwhelming when compared to your opponent.

I agree on one thinking straight up 1:1 is bad. When I say this I mean "Pak that kind of attack, tan this, bong that." However with experience this is how a fight should go...

1. Your first move is always a strike. Fights start with the other guy pushing, chesting bumping, something to size you up. You don't know what their first attack is going to be, how they will orient. Once they make any contact or enter your personal space (if legal) strike.

After that however you can actually read the opponent. Not in specific detail, aka 1:1 but in terms of will they go high or low, come from the left or right, based on their immediately previous action and your reaction to it. This is dictated by your position relative to theirs.

All you need to do is think "knees, elbows and shoulders." Did your previous action stop the left? The right is coming. Is he bladed so that the right side is closest to you and is the right "up" then it's going to be a straight shot or a tight hook. Is that right low? Look for a body shot.

Is he starting to square up on you? Look for a rush/clinch. So now it's not about going through his attacks, it's about trying to circle to his blind side.

Is he carrying more weight on the back leg and not leaning in like a boxer? The guy has kicking in his arsenal etc.

Now the above is a GROSS generalization I am just demonstrating that it need not be 1:1. You don't need to know exactly what they are going to do in order to prepare a specific counter. You simply need situational awareness, learn to read body language and those points that, on ALL fighters, give you a clue as to what is likely happening next.

If you can't do the above then you can't adapt. On the street you never know how to your opponent is going to fight until it starts and if all you are worried about is opening a center, that irl can only be opened briefly against all but the lesser skilled of opponents, you are screwed because when that door closes, and believe me it will, what next? Try to continuously reopen that door? That is fighting's equivalent to banging your head against a wall. The wall MIGHT given in, it might not. Even if the wall does give you are coming out the worse for wear.

The problem is the modern variations on most traditional martial arts are based on theory and training. The original forms that were often more conceptual, like WC, were conceptual because in the 18th, 19th and even early-mid 20th centuries the practitioners fought real fights, often against different styles. As such adaptation, upon a consistent foundation, was built in. However when modern variations are created they all too often create the training based on theory, but as society now frowns upon no holds barred challenge matches the practical application, that proves or disproves the new theories, is lacking.

This isn't to say modern iterations have no benefit, they do, but the practitioner needs to understand that the practical application of the theory and training of their art needs to have practical application added to it. Too few schools do this, so the practitioner may have to branch out. Make friends with people who study other arts and will let you spar with them. There are actually some good video channels that focus less on pure martial art forms and more on the combative side.

I only say the above btw because you keep saying "too much 1:1 thinking". I have been in more than my fair share of rl fights and it simply isn't as black and white as you seem to be making it.

 

[Phobius]

?

I've only repeated the exact same thing!

Doesn't matter what it is. The path is obstructed from above. Bong-sau clears the way for the punch it's coupled with. Simple as that.

I don't know why people are unable to wrap their heads around spatial awareness and acting to rectify position, or why they are so obsessed with defining a specific technique for it to be "applied against".

Too much 1:1 application thinking...

Think I explained this before. On a forum you can not talk in abstract terms if you want a discussion. You need to provide an example for better understanding in many cases.

1:1 application is not what anyone is talking about. A scenario is what is being asked.

You however do not seem willing to discuss anything because when someone says "would you do bong-sau towards a punch" you reply with "we are not thinking in terms of application". But what you refuse to understand is that noone is talking about application, people are simply asking a very easy question of whether or not one of those scenarios where you might be using bong-sau is on a punch.

When avoiding the question altogether, writing non-coherent responses such as it not being about opponent position but focus on your own and then writing that spatial awareness is very crucial together with your own position. Those two messages are contradicting each other. Another thing you do now is saying you are not doing application, that is good but it was never part of the question. If people ask would you do bong-sau against a punch, it is you who are thinking in terms of application. Me asking the question is just thinking, do you think that is a valid scenario in any situation according to your principles?

You talk about retaking space, this means there needs to be something holding that space. I might be wrong but right now only thing I can think of is three options.
1. A static arm (guard or whatnot), meaning it is not moving at least in any speed dangerous in terms of attacking.
2. A punching/attacking arm, moving at a speed that make it a threat.
3. Nothing in the way but opponent having the possibility to punch if he/she decides to.

In option 1, personally I do not see this as a frequent scenario. And option 3 I would never consider moving forward with a bong sau being a very wise choice if you fight. This leaves option 2 which was why it was asked.

Not because of application, besides a 1:1 application would require information on what specific type of punch it is. Just saying a punch would not make it a 1:1 application because there are for non-WC multiple ways to attack and punch.

So all in all, you are being vague. Perhaps this is on purpose because you have no desire to answer questions on what you do.

 

[Juany118]

I understand your points very clearly. I would say, go by the way of Wu De. We can be tactful and position ourselves with others in a positive way, in-turn making a point much more readily heard and accepted. Go the respectful route always. How would your Sifu like you to respond to pointing out the flaws of others? I know that Wong Shun Leung would have wanted me to respond with respect and represent our lineage with the utmost pride. He would see no purpose in finding issues with other peoples' Wing Chun. In fact, he frowned upon it.

The practitioner with flawed understanding that teaches others is indeed an issue in our community. A never ending, debatable topic... But they're still just practitioners, regardless of their title or position. No lineage is responsible, some people get it and some don't. There's no way everyone is going to understand, and it's really not a big deal. Keep doing what you're doing and focus on your own Wing Chun. When you have the opportunity to share ideas with a student from another lineage, do so. At the end of the day, it's all about action anyway.

I think there is a dynamic though that makes things more complicated though as I note in my more lengthy post above. Often, if your only experience is in a particular class, you may see a practitioner as being "wrong". All to often we see techniques as s dogma of sorts. We are training and sparring against people following the same theory and training and so we think "yes this works!!!" Now luckily, most of the time, when that rare case comes along when a practitioner has to defend themselves irl they are confronted by someone ill prepared for a skilled defense, they assumed they were going after a "soft target."

When I comment I am commenting as someone who deals with individuals who assume I know what I am doing. They see the blue shirt and silver shield, the tools on my belt. They aren't going to take a damn thing for granted and they are going to fight like a S.O.B because they either want to overwhelm me before I get to a tool or break me all fueled by the fear that only the threat of your freedom being taken away can bring. So I will admit that some of the things I do might make a "purist" say "that isn't really WC". Example, there are purists who say a bong should only spiral out of a tan if there is still energy incoming. If I use a bong on it's own, because based on relative positions it's easier to transition into a lan, to gain distance and not continue an attack, so I can pull a tool to be a force multiplier (baton, taser, gun), I wasn't doing "real" WC.

So sometimes it's not about sharing different theories of WC alone, its about sharing these ideas in the context of different rl applications. Now the problem is if someone's experience is, for the most part, in theory and training and not practical application, they fall back on the two they know best and this can create a language barrier of sorts.

 

[geezer]

This is the point I was trying to make in my last post to geezer.

But discussing it with people who keep looking for 1:1 applications seems kind of impossible.

Can't see the forest for the trees. If you don't understanding strategy, you're left thinking in terms of this vs that.

Many Wing Chun lineages seem to have all the "hands" and possible application ideas for them, but lack any sort of overall fighting strategy. That's probably the largest flaw when it comes down to it.

Just to be clear: I have never advocated "1:1 applications" for techniques. Furthermore, I do advocate strategic thinking including maintaining forward intent, capturing space, and disrupting your opponent's structure, not just displacing his arms. Callen made a great point suggesting that some times we end up in battles over words, and that if we VT/WC people could actually get together and share approaches, seeing and feeling what the other guy does, some of us could probably find a lot to agree on.

...or perhaps not. Either way there is no benefit in immediately assuming that everybody else has got it wrong.

 

[SaulGoodman]

The below is simply based on general fighting experience, no particular art.

Spatial awareness is about being aware not only of how you are positioned in 3 dimensional space but how your opponent is positioned in same said space. Have you compromised their balance/center? Are (again not strictly 1:1) you and your opponent positioned in such a way that he is most likely to go low, high, come from the left of the right or even just try a straight up "bum rush?" These are all things a person who has practice in real fighting can determine. If you have repeated the exact same thing...that what your enemy is doing is unimportant, that your positioning is all that is important and yet spatial awareness of your opponent is important, then you have consistently contradicted yourself.

You seem to see fighting in real life as it is taught in theory in class. There is theory, then training, then practical application. Sparring = training btw because usually you are sparring in training against people following the same theory as yourself.

"Open up the center so you can strike until the enemy is down." Irl fighting this does NOT happen against fighters that are even just experienced in "street fighting" and not formally trained. They understand instinctively when their center is open. You may get a couple attacks in but then they cover, clinch, get distance whatever and then the fight is one again. What you describe is only truly effective against someone who is engaging in feral attacks with no thought or if your skill/technique and "killer instinct" are simply overwhelming when compared to your opponent.

I agree on one thinking straight up 1:1 is bad. When I say this I mean "Pak that kind of attack, tan this, bong that." However with experience this is how a fight should go...

1. Your first move is always a strike. Fights start with the other guy pushing, chesting bumping, something to size you up. You don't know what their first attack is going to be, how they will orient. Once they make any contact or enter your personal space (if legal) strike.

After that however you can actually read the opponent. Not in specific detail, aka 1:1 but in terms of will they go high or low, come from the left or right, based on their immediately previous action and your reaction to it. This is dictated by your position relative to theirs.

All you need to do is think "knees, elbows and shoulders." Did your previous action stop the left? The right is coming. Is he bladed so that the right side is closest to you and is the right "up" then it's going to be a straight shot or a tight hook. Is that right low? Look for a body shot.

Is he starting to square up on you? Look for a rush/clinch. So now it's not about going through his attacks, it's about trying to circle to his blind side.

Is he carrying more weight on the back leg and not leaning in like a boxer? The guy has kicking in his arsenal etc.

Now the above is a GROSS generalization I am just demonstrating that it need not be 1:1. You don't need to know exactly what they are going to do in order to prepare a specific counter. You simply need situational awareness, learn to read body language and those points that, on ALL fighters, give you a clue as to what is likely happening next.

If you can't do the above then you can't adapt. On the street you never know how to your opponent is going to fight until it starts and if all you are worried about is opening a center, that irl can only be opened briefly against all but the lesser skilled of opponents, you are screwed because when that door closes, and believe me it will, what next? Try to continuously reopen that door? That is fighting's equivalent to banging your head against a wall. The wall MIGHT given in, it might not. Even if the wall does give you are coming out the worse for wear.

The problem is the modern variations on most traditional martial arts are based on theory and training. The original forms that were often more conceptual, like WC, were conceptual because in the 18th, 19th and even early-mid 20th centuries the practitioners fought real fights, often against different styles. As such adaptation, upon a consistent foundation, was built in. However when modern variations are created they all too often create the training based on theory, but as society now frowns upon no holds barred challenge matches the practical application, that proves or disproves the new theories, is lacking.

This isn't to say modern iterations have no benefit, they do, but the practitioner needs to understand that the practical application of the theory and training of their art needs to have practical application added to it. Too few schools do this, so the practitioner may have to branch out. Make friends with people who study other arts and will let you spar with them. There are actually some good video channels that focus less on pure martial art forms and more on the combative side.

I only say the above btw because you keep saying "too much 1:1 thinking". I have been in more than my fair share of rl fights and it simply isn't as black and white as you seem to be making it.

Great post, empirical information from people who have "been there" is invaluable. Especially for the theorists who think fighting is easy..,,