What if Wing Chun remained a concept...

[Nobody Important]

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.

I love the cherry picking! The fact that you actually believe it to be unique amongst all the other arts surrounding it, and believe it to possess a strategy that is fundamentally different as compared to all other arts surrounding it, suggests you truly believe it to have been created in a vacuum. Your unwillingness to accept how others perceive the art, apply it methods or view it conceptually, suggests that you believe it to have been created in a vacuum. The strict adherence to the belief that VT methodology is vastly superior to all other approaches suggests you truly believe it to have been created in a vacuum. The fact that you believe the art at a fundamental level is vastly different and incomparable to anything other than VT, suggests you believe it to have been created in a vacuum. The fact that you believe WSL was the only student of YM to fully comprehend VT suggests you believe that what WSL passed on was created in a vacuum and came directly from YP , who we can only deduce was actually the creator of VT which was passed on to only WSL.

So let's see if I can piece this together.

In the mid 1900's YP created VT based upon a dream while in an opium induced stupor. Needing to make a buck, to buy more opium, he decided to teach this VT. Seeing it's popularity grow he decided to pass on it's secrets to only one gate keeper, WSL. Now his minions have taken to martial arts forums to spread the truth like Jehovah's Witnesses. Did I figure it out? Can I be in the club now?

 

[Juany118]

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.

I don't think anyone has advocated a 1:1 application for techniques. The more I read his posts and the responses to them, it seems that if you simply disagree with him he goes to the "1:1 applications don't work" as a reflexive defense regardless of what was actually said.

 

[LFJ]

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.

Jeezus...

Attack line is obstructed from above. By what exactly doesn't matter. Demanding that I define exactly what the opponent is using is asking for a 1:1 application.

As I already explained multiple times... I can't attack directly. I can't retract my arm to go over or I'll be hit. I can't use an auxiliary action like paak or jat because the obstruction is from above and if I retract to paak I'll be hit. So, Bong must be used as a remedial action to clear the line for attack and regain position.

It will not be used as a primary action against any sort of attack where I have position and range to directly counter strike or use auxiliary actions without raising elbows. It's not an application against any specific attack. It's a remedial action in response to disadvantageous position perceived through spatial awareness.

If that's to "vague" for you guys, then just forget it.

 

[Juany118]

Jeezus...

Attack line is obstructed from above. By what exactly doesn't matter. Demanding that I define exactly what the opponent is using is asking for a 1:1 application.

As I already explained multiple times... I can't attack directly. I can't retract my arm to go over or I'll be hit. I can't use an auxiliary action like paak or jat because the obstruction is from above and if I retract to paak I'll be hit. So, Bong must be used as a remedial action to clear the line for attack and regain position.

It will not be used as a primary action against any sort of attack where I have position and range to directly counter strike or use auxiliary actions without raising elbows. It's not an application against any specific attack. It's a remedial action in response to disadvantageous position perceived through spatial awareness.

If that's to "vague" for you guys, then just forget it.

First no one and I mean no one has said **** all about what you call a 1:1 application.

Secondly if you don't mean what I have quoted...from back to back posts, then maybe it would benefit us all if you stopped with clearly reflexive responses and stop and consider your wording.

Throughout your posts there is a condescending tone and perhaps these posts that are causing so much issue are based on the fact that you are responding "down" to us.

 

[Nobody Important]

Jeezus...

Attack line is obstructed from above. By what exactly doesn't matter. Demanding that I define exactly what the opponent is using is asking for a 1:1 application.

As I already explained multiple times... I can't attack directly. I can't retract my arm to go over or I'll be hit. I can't use an auxiliary action like paak or jat because the obstruction is from above and if I retract to paak I'll be hit. So, Bong must be used as a remedial action to clear the line for attack and regain position.

It will not be used as a primary action against any sort of attack where I have position and range to directly counter strike or use auxiliary actions without raising elbows. It's not an application against any specific attack. It's a remedial action in response to disadvantageous position perceived through spatial awareness.

If that's to "vague" for you guys, then just forget it.

I believe I actually understand this and find myself agreeing with LFJ here. After sorting through all the banter, basically what LFJ is saying is obstruction/incoming force is above your bridge on your line of attack. This needs to be cleared/dealt with to regain line of attack. There are many movements that could potentially clear/neutralize the obstruction/force, but at a cost. In this hypothetical scenario bong is best choice. I can agree with that assessment. It's the safest and simplest choice if I'm understanding this strange conversation correctly.

 

[LFJ]

Right, and it's coupled with a punch that also clears the line as it hits to the target should any obstruction remain or attempt to reenter that space. I did not think what I was explaining was all that hard to follow.

People just keep asking what specific technique I'd be throwing a bong-sau at, then saying this isn't asking for the other side of a 1:1 application...

I respond to changes in position through spatial awareness to take or regain space while attacking. I don't reactively throw out a bong-sau or anything else as an application against specific techniques, so I can't answer that question. It could be any number of things, and it doesn't matter.

 

[Juany118]

Right, and it's coupled with a punch that also clears the line as it hits to the target should any obstruction remain or attempt to reenter that space. I did not think what I was explaining was all that hard to follow.

People just keep asking what specific technique I'd be throwing a bong-sau at, then saying this isn't asking for the other side of a 1:1 application...

I respond to changes in position through spatial awareness to take or regain space while attacking. I don't reactively throw out a bong-sau or anything else as an application against specific techniques, so I can't answer that question. It could be any number of things, and it doesn't matter.

First-please show where anyone has mentioned a specific 1:1.

Second please show where people have asked what specific attack you would throw a bong at.

Geezer, I, and as far as I see Nobody, have never asked anything similar to number two. We simply felt your previous statements regarding the bong were dismissive to say the least. There is a difference.

 

[Nobody Important]

Right, and it's coupled with a punch that also clears the line as it hits to the target should any obstruction remain or attempt to reenter that space. I did not think what I was explaining was all that hard to follow.

People just keep asking what specific technique I'd be throwing a bong-sau at, then saying this isn't asking for the other side of a 1:1 application...

I respond to changes in position through spatial awareness to take or regain space while attacking. I don't reactively throw out a bong-sau or anything else as an application against specific techniques, so I can't answer that question. It could be any number of things, and it doesn't matter.

I understand what you are saying and yes very basic. I think the confusion is stemming from a lack of understanding or simple verbiage as to how you fill that space without "feeling". I get where your coming from, but you may need to dumb it down a bit when trying to explain it. Not everyone is on the same page when it comes to describing strategy, theory etc. Best explained where ambiguity of how a concept, strategy, technique etc. is least likely to take precedence.

 

[Nobody Important]

First-please show where anyone has mentioned a specific 1:1.

Second please show where people have asked what specific attack you would throw a bong at.

Geezer, I, and as far as I see Nobody, have never asked anything similar to number two. We simply felt your previous statements regarding the bong were dismissive to say the least. There is a difference.

I think that terminology has a lot to due with the confusion, as much as the dismissiveness. I think we all have slightly different interpretations of various descriptors in the context of the conversation. If we are not on the same page concerning the terminology used we will misinterpret.

 

[LFJ]

There was video provided showing how bong-sau is done and its effect, and my explanation of when it would be used is I think as clear and dumbed down as it can get.

I don't know how many times I had to repeat in this thread that it's not a primary action thrown out at a punch, yet somehow Phobius and Geezer kept going there.

 

[Juany118]

I think that terminology has a lot to due with the confusion, as much as the dismissiveness. I think we all have slightly different interpretations of various descriptors in the context of the conversation. If we are not on the same page concerning the terminology used we will misinterpret.

And I get that. That, hence why, when I joined in, I asked this like "if I did not misunderstand you."

Instead, even with that clear request for clarification I got the same stuff regurgitated to me with what amounted to an "you must be an idiot."

Hence why I appreciate your generosity but I fear it may be misplaced.

 

[Phobius]

There was video provided showing how bong-sau is done and its effect, and my explanation of when it would be used is I think as clear and dumbed down as it can get.

I don't know how many times I had to repeat in this thread that it's not a primary action thrown out at a punch, yet somehow Phobius and Geezer kept going there.

Nobody is claiming it is a primary action thrown out at a punch. The only one who has said anything in those terms are you.

I have just asked, you would you use bong-sau similar to laap movement on an incoming punch? It started out as a very simple yes and no question. Then you started talking about 1:1 application and whatnot. But I did raise another question and that is what you think is the primary thing to you occupying the space you want to clear. A punch, a static arm, or nothing but a clear path for your opponent?

Right, and it's coupled with a punch that also clears the line as it hits to the target should any obstruction remain or attempt to reenter that space. I did not think what I was explaining was all that hard to follow.

It is not hard to follow, neither are the questions that are being asked.

People just keep asking what specific technique I'd be throwing a bong-sau at, then saying this isn't asking for the other side of a 1:1 application...

Noone has asked what specific technique you'd be throwing a bong sau at. The question at least as far as I am aware has never come up. This also makes the whole point of 1:1 application flawed as explained earlier.

I respond to changes in position through spatial awareness to take or regain space while attacking. I don't reactively throw out a bong-sau or anything else as an application against specific techniques, so I can't answer that question. It could be any number of things, and it doesn't matter.

Responding with bong-sau to changes in position is to reactively throw out a bong-sau. It is the very meaning of that sentence and there are no other ways to do it unless your arm follows a will of its own and just happend to do exactly what was expected. Problem however is if you do something reactively then you would most likely know either by A) sparring and own experience, or B) through use of thought and consider if it would be an option for you.

As for throwing out due to changes in position it means you do not care what your opponent is doing with his arms? Or with spatial awareness you mean only reacting to his arms? Because it can also mean him changing position with his body movement as well.

I mean this should not ever have been such a complicated discussion, and the questions are not in any way unclear or difficult. Nor would you answering the questions give away some big secret about your strategy or anything else for that matter. They were simply intended to remove any unclarity in order to continue discussion. Instead the questions themselves have become the discussion.

 

[guy b]

The fact that you actually believe it to be unique amongst all the other arts surrounding it, and believe it to possess a strategy that is fundamentally different as compared to all other arts surrounding it, suggests you truly believe it to have been created in a vacuum.

I don't know of any other systems with the same strategic approach to fight. Some people have other interpretations of the system and that is up to them. When I investigate these other ideas generally I find that they are incoherent and/or contradictory. This leads me to believe that they are misunderstandings of the system (probability argument). It is quite possible that other people besides WSL also understood the system, I have not met any though. I don't know where it came from, all we can do is speculate about that.

 

[Callen]

It is quite possible that other people besides WSL also understood the system, I have not met any though.

For certain there are other Yip Man students who understood the system. It's also important to remember that WSL changed what he was taught by YM to some degree. WSL's Wing Chun was largely derived in-part due to his own interpretations of the system.

 

[LFJ]

It is not hard to follow, neither are the questions that are being asked.

If it's not hard to follow, you wouldn't keep asking the same questions that have been repeatedly answered.

I've put things in the simplest terms possible. If you still don't understand, I can't help you.

 

[Phobius]

If it's not hard to follow, you wouldn't keep asking the same questions that have been repeatedly answered.

I've put things in the simplest terms possible. If you still don't understand, I can't help you.

You have not answered. Only avoided it.

A simple term on a yes/no question is yes or no.

I am not even interested in the answer anymore. Lost my interest in the discussion but I do not approve that you falsify what has been written or asked. Nor do I find your way of writing respectful.

 

[LFJ]

You have not answered. Only avoided it.

A simple term on a yes/no question is yes or no.

Are you retarded or something? I've said NO in at least a dozen posts now. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[LFJ]

It's also important to remember that WSL changed what he was taught by YM to some degree. WSL's Wing Chun was largely derived in-part due to his own interpretations of the system.

The man himself said he didn't make any changes and taught exactly what YM taught him, which is a system of clearly defined strategy and tactics with a coherent training methodology. So, where are you getting this idea, and what parts specifically do you think he reinterpreted?

 

[Phobius]

Well first of all, reported. Second of all, if no this means you consider it's use only against static arm. In terms of saving your shoulder in a real fight it sounds wise.

Personally I have not met people occupying space with an extended static arm but then again I have far from met all people.

 

[LFJ]

You're wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about and can't understand simple explanations. So, like I said, just forget it.